Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 9:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 3:20 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached the latest patch set v75*
> >
>
> Review comments for v75-0001-Add-support-for-prepared-transactions-to-built-i:
> ===============================================================================
> 1.
> -   <term><literal>CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT</literal> <replaceable
> class="parameter">slot_name</replaceable> [
> <literal>TEMPORARY</literal> ] { <literal>PHYSICAL</literal> [
> <literal>RESERVE_WAL</literal> ] | <literal>LOGICAL</literal>
> <replaceable class="parameter">output_plugin</replaceable> [
> <literal>EXPORT_SNAPSHOT</literal> |
> <literal>NOEXPORT_SNAPSHOT</literal> | <literal>USE_SNAPSHOT</literal>
> ] }
> +   <term><literal>CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT</literal> <replaceable
> class="parameter">slot_name</replaceable> [
> <literal>TEMPORARY</literal> ] [ <literal>TWO_PHASE</literal> ] {
> <literal>PHYSICAL</literal> [ <literal>RESERVE_WAL</literal> ] |
> <literal>LOGICAL</literal> <replaceable
> class="parameter">output_plugin</replaceable> [
> <literal>EXPORT_SNAPSHOT</literal> |
> <literal>NOEXPORT_SNAPSHOT</literal> | <literal>USE_SNAPSHOT</literal>
> ] }
>
>
> Can we do some testing of the code related to this in some way? One
> random idea could be to change the current subscriber-side code just
> for testing purposes to see if this works. Can we enhance and use
> pg_recvlogical to test this? It is possible that if you address
> comment number 13 below, this can be tested with Create Subscription
> command.
>

TODO

> 2.
> -   belong to the same transaction. It also sends changes of large in-progress
> -   transactions between a pair of Stream Start and Stream Stop messages. The
> -   last stream of such a transaction contains Stream Commit or Stream Abort
> -   message.
> +   belong to the same transaction. Similarly, all messages between a pair of
> +   Begin Prepare and Commit Prepared messages belong to the same transaction.
>
> I think here we need to write Prepare instead of Commit Prepared
> because Commit Prepared for a transaction can come at a later point of
> time and all the messages in-between won't belong to the same
> transaction.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 3.
> +<!-- ==================== TWO_PHASE Messages ==================== -->
> +
> +<para>
> +The following messages (Begin Prepare, Prepare, Commit Prepared,
> Rollback Prepared)
> +are available since protocol version 3.
> +</para>
>
> I am not sure here marker like "TWO_PHASE Messages" is required. We
> don't have any such marker for streaming messages.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 4.
> +<varlistentry>
> +<term>Int64</term>
> +<listitem><para>
> +                Timestamp of the prepare transaction.
>
> Isn't it better to write this description as "Prepare timestamp of the
> transaction" to match with the similar description of Commit
> timestamp. Also, there are similar occurances in the patch at other
> places, change those as well.
>

Fixed in v77-0001, v77-0002

> 5.
> +<term>Begin Prepare</term>
> +<listitem>
> +<para>
> ...
> +<varlistentry>
> +<term>Int32</term>
> +<listitem><para>
> +                Xid of the subtransaction (will be same as xid of the
> transaction for top-level
> +                transactions).
>
> The above description seems wrong to me. It should be Xid of the
> transaction as we won't receive Xid of subtransaction in Begin
> message. The same applies to the prepare/commit prepared/rollback
> prepared transaction messages as well, so change that as well
> accordingly.
>

Fixed in v77-0001, v77-0002

> 6.
> +<term>Byte1('P')</term>
> +<listitem><para>
> +                Identifies this message as a two-phase prepare
> transaction message.
> +</para></listitem>
>
> In all the similar messages, we are using "Identifies the message as
> ...". I feel it is better to be consistent in this and similar
> messages in the patch.
>

Fixed in v77-0001, v77-0002

> 7.
> +<varlistentry>
> +
> +<term>Rollback Prepared</term>
> +<listitem>
> ..
> +<varlistentry>
> +<term>Int64</term>
> +<listitem><para>
> +                The LSN of the prepare.
> +</para></listitem>
>
> This should be end LSN of the prepared transaction.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 8.
> +bool
> +LookupGXact(const char *gid, XLogRecPtr prepare_end_lsn,
> + TimestampTz origin_prepare_timestamp)
> ..
> ..
> + /*
> + * We are neither expecting the collisions of GXACTs (same gid)
> + * between publisher and subscribers nor the apply worker restarts
> + * after prepared xacts,
>
> The second part of the comment ".. nor the apply worker restarts after
> prepared xacts .." is no longer true after commit 8bdb1332eb[1]. So,
> we can remove it.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 9.
> + /*
> + * Does the subscription have tables?
> + *
> + * If there were not-READY relations found then we know it does. But if
> + * table_state_no_ready was empty we still need to check again to see
> + * if there are 0 tables.
> + */
> + has_subrels = (list_length(table_states_not_ready) > 0) ||
>
> Typo in comments. /table_state_no_ready/table_state_not_ready
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 10.
> + if (!twophase)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> + errmsg("unrecognized subscription parameter: \"%s\"", defel->defname)));
>
> errmsg is not aligned properly. Can we make the error message clear,
> something like: "cannot change two_phase option"
>

Fixed in v77-0001.

I fixed the alignment, but did not modify the message text.This
message was already changed in v74 to make it more consistent with
similar errors. Please see Vignesh feedback  [1] comment #1.

> 11.
> @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ parse_subscription_options(List *options,
>      char **synchronous_commit,
>      bool *refresh,
>      bool *binary_given, bool *binary,
> -    bool *streaming_given, bool *streaming)
> +    bool *streaming_given, bool *streaming,
> +    bool *twophase_given, bool *twophase)
>
> This function already has 14 parameters and this patch adds 2 new
> ones. Isn't it better to have a struct (ParseSubOptions) for these
> parameters? I think that might lead to some code churn but we can have
> that as a separate patch on top of which we can create two_pc patch.
>

This same modification is  already being addressed in another thread
[2]. So we do nothing in this patch for now, but certainly this area
needs to be re-based later after the other patch is pushed,

> 12.
> * The subscription two_phase commit implementation requires
> + * that replication has passed the initial table
> + * synchronization phase before the two_phase becomes properly
> + * enabled.
>
> Can we slightly modify the starting of this sentence as:"The
> subscription option 'two_phase' requires that ..."
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 13.
> @@ -507,7 +558,16 @@ CreateSubscription(CreateSubscriptionStmt *stmt,
> bool isTopLevel)
>   {
>   Assert(slotname);
>
> - walrcv_create_slot(wrconn, slotname, false,
> + /*
> + * Even if two_phase is set, don't create the slot with
> + * two-phase enabled. Will enable it once all the tables are
> + * synced and ready. This avoids race-conditions like prepared
> + * transactions being skipped due to changes not being applied
> + * due to checks in should_apply_changes_for_rel() when
> + * tablesync for the corresponding tables are in progress. See
> + * comments atop worker.c.
> + */
> + walrcv_create_slot(wrconn, slotname, false, false,
>
> Can't we enable two_phase if copy_data is false? Because in that case,
> all relations will be in a READY state. If we do that then we should
> also set two_phase state as 'enabled' during createsubscription. I
> think we need to be careful to check that connect option is given and
> copy_data is false before setting such a state. Now, I guess we may
> not be able to optimize this to not set 'enabled' state when the
> subscription has no rels.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 14.
> + if (options->proto.logical.twophase &&
> + PQserverVersion(conn->streamConn) >= 140000)
> + appendStringInfoString(&cmd, ", two_phase 'on'");
> +
>
> We need to check 150000 here but for now, maybe we can add a comment
> similar to what you have added in ApplyWorkerMain to avoid forgetting
> this change. Probably a similar comment is required pg_dump.c.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 15.
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ logicalrep_write_begin(StringInfo out, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
>
>   /* fixed fields */
>   pq_sendint64(out, txn->final_lsn);
> - pq_sendint64(out, txn->commit_time);
> + pq_sendint64(out, txn->u_op_time.prepare_time);
>   pq_sendint32(out, txn->xid);
>
> Why here prepare_time? It should be commit_time. We use prepare_time
> in begin_prepare not in begin.
>

Fixed in v77-0001

> 16.
> +logicalrep_write_commit_prepared(StringInfo out, ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> + XLogRecPtr commit_lsn)
> +{
> + uint8 flags = 0;
> +
> + pq_sendbyte(out, LOGICAL_REP_MSG_COMMIT_PREPARED);
> +
> + /*
> + * This should only ever happen for two-phase commit transactions. In
> + * which case we expect to have a valid GID. Additionally, the transaction
> + * must be prepared. See ReorderBufferFinishPrepared.
> + */
> + Assert(txn->gid != NULL);
> +
>
> The second part of the comment ("Additionally, the transaction must be
> prepared) is no longer true. Also, we can combine the first two
> sentences here and at other places where a similar comment is used.
>

Fixed in v77-0001, v77-0002

> 17.
> + union
> + {
> + TimestampTz commit_time;
> + TimestampTz prepare_time;
> + } u_op_time;
>
> I think it is better to name this union as xact_time or trans_time.
>

Fixed in v77-0001, v77-0002

--------
[1] = https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0u%3DQGwd7jDAj-4u%3D7vvPn5rarFjBMCgfiJbDte55CWAA%40mail.gmail.com
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWEjphPsfpyX9M%2BRdqmoRwRbWVKMoW7Tx1o%2Bh%2BoNEs4pQ%40mail.gmail.com

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia