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.
Agreed.
> The
> other idea would be to add new member(s) in ReorderBufferTXN to
> receive distributed invalidations. For adding the new member in
> ReorderBufferTXN: (a) in HEAD, it should be okay, (b) for
> backbranches, we may be able to add at the end, but we should check if
> there are any extensions using sizeof(ReorderBufferTxn) and if they
> are using what we need to do.
If we can make sure that that change won't break the existing
extensions, I think this would be the most reasonable solution.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com