Re: logical replication empty transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Here are a some review comments:

------

1. The patch v3 applied OK but with whitespace warnings

[postgres@CentOS7-x64 oss_postgres_2PC]$ git apply
../patches_misc/v3-0001-Skip-empty-transactions-for-logical-replication.patch
../patches_misc/v3-0001-Skip-empty-transactions-for-logical-replication.patch:98:
indent with spaces.
    /* output BEGIN if we haven't yet, avoid for streaming and
non-transactional messages */
../patches_misc/v3-0001-Skip-empty-transactions-for-logical-replication.patch:99:
indent with spaces.
    if (!data->xact_wrote_changes && !in_streaming && transactional)
warning: 2 lines add whitespace errors.

------

2. Please create a CF entry in [1] for this patch.

------

3. Patch comment

The comment  describes the problem and then suddenly just says
"Postpone the BEGIN message until the first change."

I suggest changing it to say more like... "(blank line) This patch
addresses the above problem by postponing the BEGIN message until the
first change."

------

4. pgoutput.h

Maybe for consistency with the context member, the comment for the new
member should be to the right instead of above it?

@@ -20,6 +20,9 @@ typedef struct PGOutputData
  MemoryContext context; /* private memory context for transient
  * allocations */

+ /* flag indicating whether messages have previously been sent */
+ bool        xact_wrote_changes;
+

------

5. pgoutput.h

+ /* flag indicating whether messages have previously been sent */

"previously been sent" --> "already been sent" ??

------

6. pgoutput.h - misleading member name

Actually, now that I have read all the rest of the code and how this
member is used I feel that this name is very misleading. e.g. For
"streaming" case then you still are writing changes but are not
setting this member at all - therefore it does not always mean what it
says.

I feel a better name for this would be something like
"sent_begin_txn". Then if you have sent BEGIN it is true. If you
haven't sent BEGIN it is false. It eliminates all ambiguity naming it
this way instead.

(This makes my feedback #5 redundant because the comment will be a bit
different if you do this).

------

7. pgoutput.c - function pgoutput_begin_txn

@@ -345,6 +345,23 @@ pgoutput_startup(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
OutputPluginOptions *opt,
 static void
 pgoutput_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
 {

I guess that you still needed to pass the txn because that is how the
API is documented, right?

But I am wondering if you ought to flag it as unused so you wont get
some BF machine giving warnings about it.

e.g. Syntax like this?

pgoutput_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN * txn) {
(void)txn;
...

------

8. pgoutput.c - function pgoutput_begin_txn

@@ -345,6 +345,23 @@ pgoutput_startup(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
OutputPluginOptions *opt,
 static void
 pgoutput_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
 {
+ PGOutputData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
+
+ /*
+ * Don't send BEGIN message here. Instead, postpone it until the first
+ * change. In logical replication, a common scenario is to replicate a set
+ * of tables (instead of all tables) and transactions whose changes were on
+ * table(s) that are not published will produce empty transactions. These
+ * empty transactions will send BEGIN and COMMIT messages to subscribers,
+ * using bandwidth on something with little/no use for logical replication.
+ */
+ data->xact_wrote_changes = false;
+ elog(LOG,"Holding of begin");
+}

Why is this loglevel LOG? Looks like leftover debugging.

------

9. pgoutput.c - function pgoutput_commit_txn

@@ -384,8 +401,14 @@ static void
 pgoutput_commit_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
  XLogRecPtr commit_lsn)
 {
+ PGOutputData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
+
  OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx);

+ /* skip COMMIT message if nothing was sent */
+ if (!data->xact_wrote_changes)
+ return;
+

In the case where you decided to do nothing does it make sense that
you still called the function OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx); ?
I thought perhaps that your new check should come first so this call
would never happen.

------

10. pgoutput.c - variable declarations without casts

+ PGOutputData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;

I noticed the new stack variable you declare have no casts.

This differs from the existing code which always looks like:
PGOutputData *data = (PGOutputData *) ctx->output_plugin_private;

There are a couple of examples of this so please search new code to
find them all.

-----

11. pgoutput.c - function pgoutput_change

@@ -551,6 +574,13 @@ pgoutput_change(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
  Assert(false);
  }

+ /* output BEGIN if we haven't yet */
+ if (!data->xact_wrote_changes && !in_streaming)
+ {
+ pgoutput_begin(ctx, txn);
+ data->xact_wrote_changes = true;
+ }

If the variable is renamed as previously suggested then the assignment
data->sent_BEGIN_txn = true; can be assigned in just 1 common place
INSIDE the pgoutput_begin function.

------

12. pgoutput.c - pgoutput_truncate function

@@ -693,6 +723,13 @@ pgoutput_truncate(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn,

  if (nrelids > 0)
  {
+ /* output BEGIN if we haven't yet */
+ if (!data->xact_wrote_changes && !in_streaming)
+ {
+ pgoutput_begin(ctx, txn);
+ data->xact_wrote_changes = true;
+ }

(same comment as above)

If the variable is renamed as previously suggested then the assignment
data->sent_BEGIN_txn = true; can be assigned in just 1 common place
INSIDE the pgoutput_begin function.

13. pgoutput.c - pgoutput_message

@@ -725,6 +762,13 @@ pgoutput_message(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
  if (in_streaming)
  xid = txn->xid;

+    /* output BEGIN if we haven't yet, avoid for streaming and
non-transactional messages */
+    if (!data->xact_wrote_changes && !in_streaming && transactional)
+ {
+ pgoutput_begin(ctx, txn);
+ data->xact_wrote_changes = true;
+ }

(same comment as above)

If the variable is renamed as previously suggested then the assignment
data->sent_BEGIN_txn = true; can be assigned in just 1 common place
INSIDE the pgoutput_begin function.

------

14. Test Code.

I noticed that there is no test code specifically for seeing if empty
transactions get sent or not. Is it possible to write such a test or
is this traffic improvement only observable using the debugger?