On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:22 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 4:19 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 2:52 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > > <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If the above hypothesis is true, we need to consider another idea so
> > > > > that we can execute invalidation messages in both cases.
> > > >
> > > > The straightforward fix is to check the change queue as well when the transaction
> > > > has invalidation messages. 0003 implemented that. One downside is that traversing
> > > > changes can affect performance. Currently we iterates all of changes even a
> > > > single REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INVALIDATION. I cannot find better solutions for now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It can impact the performance for large transactions with fewer
> > > invalidations, especially the ones which has spilled changes because
> > > it needs to traverse the entire list of changes again at the end.
> >
> > What if we remember all executed REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INVALIDATION in
> > a queue while replaying the transaction so that we can execute them at
> > the end in a non-error path, instead of re-traversing the entire list
> > of changes to execute the inval messages?
> >
>
> The current proposed patch (v4) is also traversing only the required
> inval messages, as it has maintained a separate queue for that. So,
> what will be the advantage of forming such a queue during the
> processing of changes? Are you imagining a local instead of a queue at
> ReorderBufferTXN level? I feel we still need at ReorderBufferTXN level
> to ensure that we can execute those changes across streaming blocks,
> otherwise, the cleanup of such a local queue would be tricky and add
> to maintenance effort.
Hmm, right. It seems that we keep accumulating inval messages across
streaming blocks.
> One disadvantage of the approach you suggest is that the changes in
> the new queue won't be accounted for in logical_decoding_work_mem
> computation, which can be done in the proposed approach, although the
> patch hasn't implemented it as of now.
If we serialize the new queue to the disk, we would need to restore
them in PG_CATCH() block in order to execute all inval messages, which
is something that I'd like to avoid as it would involve many
operations that could end up in an error.
If each ReorderBufferTXN has only non-distributed inval messages in
txn->invalidation and distribute only txn->invalidations to other
transactions, the scope of influence of a single Inval Message is
limited to transactions that are being decoded at the same time. How
much is there chance the size of txn->invalidations reach 1GB? Given
the size of SharedInvalidationMessage is 16 bytes, we need about 67k
inval messages generated across concurrent transactions.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
