Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:26 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 3:40 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 1:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 7:35 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > > > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 4:07 PM Amit Kapila
> > > > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:36 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > > > > > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the analysis and summary !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tried to implement the above idea and here is the patch set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Few comments on v42-0001
> > > > > > ===========================
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > + winfo->shared->stream_lock_id = parallel_apply_get_unique_id();
> > > > > > + winfo->shared->transaction_lock_id =
> > > > > > + winfo->shared->parallel_apply_get_unique_id();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't we use xid (remote_xid) for one of these and local_xid
> > > > > > (one generated by parallel apply) for the other?
> > > > ...
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I also considered using xid for these locks, but it seems the objsubid
> > > > > for the shared object lock is 16bit while xid is 32 bit. So, I tried
> > > > > to generate a unique 16bit id here.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I see your point. Can we think of having a new lock tag for this with classid,
> > > > objid, objsubid for the first three fields of locktag field? We can use a new
> > > > macro SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION and a common function to set the
> > > > tag and acquire the lock. One more point related to this is that I am suggesting
> > > > classid by referring to SET_LOCKTAG_OBJECT as that is used in the current
> > > > patch but do you think we need it for our purpose, won't subscription id and
> > > > xid can uniquely identify the tag?
> > >
> > > I agree that it could be better to have a new lock tag. Another point is that
> > > the remote xid and Local xid could be the same in some rare cases, so I think
> > > we might need to add another identifier to make it unique.
> > >
> > > Maybe :
> > > locktag_field1 : subscription oid
> > > locktag_field2 : xid(remote or local)
> > > locktag_field3 : 0(lock for stream block)/1(lock for transaction)
> >
> > Or I think we can use locktag_field2 for remote xid and locktag_field3
> > for local xid.
> >
>
> We can do that way as well but OTOH, I think for the local
> transactions we don't need subscription oid, so field1 could be
> InvalidOid and field2 will be xid of local xact. Won't that be better?

This would work. But I'm a bit concerned that we cannot identify which
subscriptions the lock belongs to when checking pg_locks view.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com