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? As for concurrent abort
paths, probably we can consider re-traversing the entire list,
unconditionally invalidating all caches (using
InvalidateSystemCaches()), or somehow traversing the list of changes
only when there might be any REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INVALIDATION in the
rest of changes?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com