Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LcgaKv2hJomXcszHBsEEkedC5hwN+bu8x04xgKx=wM3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/7/22 22:25, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Interesting. I can think of one reason that might cause this - we log
> > >> the first sequence increment after a checkpoint. So if a checkpoint
> > >> happens in an unfortunate place, there'll be an extra WAL record. On
> > >> slow / busy machines that's quite possible, I guess.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've tweaked the checkpoint_interval to make checkpoints more aggressive
> > > (set it to 1s), and it seems my hunch was correct - it produces failures
> > > exactly like this one. The best fix probably is to just disable decoding
> > > of sequences in those tests that are not aimed at testing sequence decoding.
> > >
> >
> > I've pushed a fix for this, adding "include-sequences=0" to a couple
> > test_decoding tests, which were failing with concurrent checkpoints.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I realized we have a similar issue in the "sequences"
> > tests too :-( Imagine you do a series of sequence increments, e.g.
> >
> >   SELECT nextval('s') FROM generate_sequences(1,100);
> >
> > If there's a concurrent checkpoint, this may add an extra WAL record,
> > affecting the decoded output (and also the data stored in the sequence
> > relation itself). Not sure what to do about this ...
> >
>
> I am also not sure what to do for it but maybe if in some way we can
> increase checkpoint timeout or other parameters for these tests then
> it would reduce the chances of such failures. The other idea could be
> to perform checkpoint before the start of tests to reduce the
> possibility of another checkpoint.
>

One more thing, I notice while checking the commit for this feature is
that the below include seems to be out of order:
--- a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
 #include "replication/reorderbuffer.h"
 #include "replication/snapbuild.h"
 #include "storage/standby.h"
+#include "commands/sequence.h"

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Next
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats