Thread: logical streaming of xacts via test_decoding is broken
Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. Additionally, we can extend the existing test case concurrent_stream.spec to cover this scenario by adding a step to have an empty transaction before the commit of transaction which we are going to stream changes for (before s1_commit). Thoughts? [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201109014118.GD1695%40paquier.xyz [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JMCm9HURVmOapo%2Bv2u2EEABOuzgp7XJ32C072ygcKktQ%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > Additionally, we can extend the existing test case > concurrent_stream.spec to cover this scenario by adding a step to have > an empty transaction before the commit of transaction which we are > going to stream changes for (before s1_commit). > > Thoughts? The analysis seems correct to me, I will work on it. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is my understanding correct? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > my understanding correct? > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > > my understanding correct? > > > > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. Yeah, that makes sense to me. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > > > > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > > > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > > > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > > > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > > > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > > > my understanding correct? > > > > > > > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. > > Yeah, that makes sense to me. I have made some POC changes and analyzed this further, I think that for the streaming transaction we need 2 flags 1) xact_wrote_changes 2) stream_wrote_changes So basically, if the stream didn't make any changes we can skip the stream start and stream stop message for the empty stream, but if any of the streams has made any change then we need to emit the transaction commit message. But if we want to avoid tracking the changes per stream then maybe once we set the xact_wrote_changes to true once for the txn then we better emit the message for all the stream without tracking whether the stream is empty or not. What is your thought on this? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:01 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > > > > > > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > > > > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > > > > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > > > > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > > > > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > > > > my understanding correct? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. > > > > Yeah, that makes sense to me. > > I have made some POC changes and analyzed this further, I think that > for the streaming transaction we need 2 flags > 1) xact_wrote_changes 2) stream_wrote_changes > > So basically, if the stream didn't make any changes we can skip the > stream start and stream stop message for the empty stream, but if any > of the streams has made any change then we need to emit the > transaction commit message. But if we want to avoid tracking the > changes per stream then maybe once we set the xact_wrote_changes to > true once for the txn then we better emit the message for all the > stream without tracking whether the stream is empty or not. What is > your thought on this? > I would prefer to have two separate flags to control this behavior because without that it is quite possible that in some of the cases we display empty stream start/stop messages even when that is not intended. The bigger question is do we want to give users an option for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you think? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:01 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > > > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > > > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > > > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > > > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > > > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > > > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > > > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > > > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > > > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > > > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > > > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > > > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > > > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > > > > > > > > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > > > > > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > > > > > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > > > > > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > > > > > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > > > > > my understanding correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. > > > > > > Yeah, that makes sense to me. > > > > I have made some POC changes and analyzed this further, I think that > > for the streaming transaction we need 2 flags > > 1) xact_wrote_changes 2) stream_wrote_changes > > > > So basically, if the stream didn't make any changes we can skip the > > stream start and stream stop message for the empty stream, but if any > > of the streams has made any change then we need to emit the > > transaction commit message. But if we want to avoid tracking the > > changes per stream then maybe once we set the xact_wrote_changes to > > true once for the txn then we better emit the message for all the > > stream without tracking whether the stream is empty or not. What is > > your thought on this? > > > > I would prefer to have two separate flags to control this behavior > because without that it is quite possible that in some of the cases we > display empty stream start/stop messages even when that is not > intended. +1 The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > think? Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:01 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical > > > > > > > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on > > > > > > > > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming > > > > > > > > transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether > > > > > > > > xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodingContext level, one of later > > > > > > > > transaction can overwrite the flag for previously streaming > > > > > > > > transaction. I think it is logical to have this flag at each > > > > > > > > transaction level (aka in ReorderBufferTxn), however till now it was > > > > > > > > fine because the changes of each transaction are decoded at one-shot > > > > > > > > which will be no longer true. We can keep a output_plugin_private data > > > > > > > > pointer in ReorderBufferTxn which will be used by test_decoding module > > > > > > > > to keep this and any other such flags in future. We need to set this > > > > > > > > flag at begin_cb and stream_start_cb APIs and then reset/remove it at > > > > > > > > stream_commit_cb, stream_abort_cb and stream_stop_cb APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > So IIUC, we need to keep 'output_plugin_private' in > > > > > > LogicalDecodingContext as well as in ReorderBufferTxn, So the > > > > > > output_plugin_private in the ReorderBufferTxn will currently just keep > > > > > > one flag xact_wrote_changes and the remaining things will still be > > > > > > maintained in output_plugin_private of the LogicalDecodingContext. Is > > > > > > my understanding correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But keep it as void * so that we can add more things later if required. > > > > > > > > Yeah, that makes sense to me. > > > > > > I have made some POC changes and analyzed this further, I think that > > > for the streaming transaction we need 2 flags > > > 1) xact_wrote_changes 2) stream_wrote_changes > > > > > > So basically, if the stream didn't make any changes we can skip the > > > stream start and stream stop message for the empty stream, but if any > > > of the streams has made any change then we need to emit the > > > transaction commit message. But if we want to avoid tracking the > > > changes per stream then maybe once we set the xact_wrote_changes to > > > true once for the txn then we better emit the message for all the > > > stream without tracking whether the stream is empty or not. What is > > > your thought on this? > > > > > > > I would prefer to have two separate flags to control this behavior > > because without that it is quite possible that in some of the cases we > > display empty stream start/stop messages even when that is not > > intended. > > +1 > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > think? > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. I think we should also think about the combinations of the skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and skip_empty_streams is true. option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e stream begin stream start stream stop stream commit option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. What is your opinion on this? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > > think? > > > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. > > I think we should also think about the combinations of the > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user > passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true > then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction > option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just > print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and > skip_empty_streams is true. > option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first > stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts > is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. > option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e > stream begin > stream start > stream stop > stream commit > option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = > false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode > is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. > > What is your opinion on this? > I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also true. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > > > think? > > > > > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. > > > > I think we should also think about the combinations of the > > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user > > passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true > > then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction > > option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just > > print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and > > skip_empty_streams is true. > > option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first > > stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts > > is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. > > option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e > > stream begin > > stream start > > stream stop > > stream commit > > option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = > > false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode > > is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. > > > > What is your opinion on this? > > > > I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if > skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also > true. But then it will behave as a single option only, right? because if 1. skip_empty_xacts = true, then we set skip_empty_streams = true 2. skip_empty_xacts = false then skip_empty_streams can not be set to true So as per the state machine either both will be true or both will be false, Am I missing something? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > > > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > > > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. > > > > > > I think we should also think about the combinations of the > > > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user > > > passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true > > > then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction > > > option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just > > > print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and > > > skip_empty_streams is true. > > > option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first > > > stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts > > > is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. > > > option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e > > > stream begin > > > stream start > > > stream stop > > > stream commit > > > option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = > > > false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode > > > is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. > > > > > > What is your opinion on this? > > > > > > > I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if > > skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also > > true. > > But then it will behave as a single option only, right? because if > 1. skip_empty_xacts = true, then we set skip_empty_streams = true > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams' option. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > > > > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > > > > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. > > > > > > > > I think we should also think about the combinations of the > > > > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user > > > > passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true > > > > then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction > > > > option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just > > > > print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and > > > > skip_empty_streams is true. > > > > option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first > > > > stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts > > > > is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. > > > > option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e > > > > stream begin > > > > stream start > > > > stream stop > > > > stream commit > > > > option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = > > > > false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode > > > > is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. > > > > > > > > What is your opinion on this? > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if > > > skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also > > > true. > > > > But then it will behave as a single option only, right? because if > > 1. skip_empty_xacts = true, then we set skip_empty_streams = true > > > > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and > skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used > skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams' > option. Ok, thanks for the clarification. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option > > > > > > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again > > > > > > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you > > > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should also think about the combinations of the > > > > > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user > > > > > passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true > > > > > then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction > > > > > option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just > > > > > print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and > > > > > skip_empty_streams is true. > > > > > option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first > > > > > stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts > > > > > is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit. > > > > > option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e > > > > > stream begin > > > > > stream start > > > > > stream stop > > > > > stream commit > > > > > option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts = > > > > > false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode > > > > > is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams. > > > > > > > > > > What is your opinion on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if > > > > skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also > > > > true. > > > > > > But then it will behave as a single option only, right? because if > > > 1. skip_empty_xacts = true, then we set skip_empty_streams = true > > > > > > > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and > > skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used > > skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams' > > option. > > Ok, thanks for the clarification. > I have prepared a patch for the same. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and
> > > skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used
> > > skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams'
> > > option.
> >
> > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> >
>
> I have prepared a patch for the same.
>
Few comments:
1.
+ else if (strcmp(elem->defname, "skip-empty-streams") == 0)
+ {
+ if (elem->arg == NULL)
+ data->skip_empty_streams = true;
+ else if (!parse_bool(strVal(elem->arg), &data->skip_empty_streams))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("could not parse value \"%s\" for parameter \"%s\"",
+ strVal(elem->arg), elem->defname)));
+ if (!data->skip_empty_xacts && data->skip_empty_streams)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("the skip-empty-streams can not be true if skip-empty-xacts
is false")));
}
You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case.
I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it
won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems
that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment
here in that regard would be a good idea.
2.
pg_decode_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
{
TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
+ TestDecodingTxnData *txndata =
+ MemoryContextAllocZero(ctx->context, sizeof(TestDecodingTxnData));
+
Shall we free this memory at commit time for the sake of consistency,
otherwise also it would be freed with decoding context?
3. Can you please prepare a separate patch for test case changes so
that it would be easier to verify that it fails without the patch and
passed after the patch?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and
> > > > skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used
> > > > skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams'
> > > > option.
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> > >
> >
> > I have prepared a patch for the same.
> >
>
> Few comments:
> 1.
> + else if (strcmp(elem->defname, "skip-empty-streams") == 0)
> + {
> + if (elem->arg == NULL)
> + data->skip_empty_streams = true;
> + else if (!parse_bool(strVal(elem->arg), &data->skip_empty_streams))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> + errmsg("could not parse value \"%s\" for parameter \"%s\"",
> + strVal(elem->arg), elem->defname)));
> + if (!data->skip_empty_xacts && data->skip_empty_streams)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> + errmsg("the skip-empty-streams can not be true if skip-empty-xacts
> is false")));
> }
>
> You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case.
> I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it
> won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems
> that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment
> here in that regard would be a good idea.
Should we also consider the case that if the user just passed
skip_empty_streams to true then we should automatically set
skip_empty_xacts to true?
And we will allow the 'skip_empty_streams' parameter only if
stream-changes' is true.
> 2.
> pg_decode_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> {
> TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
> + TestDecodingTxnData *txndata =
> + MemoryContextAllocZero(ctx->context, sizeof(TestDecodingTxnData));
> +
>
> Shall we free this memory at commit time for the sake of consistency,
> otherwise also it would be freed with decoding context?
Yeah, actually I have freed in the stream commit but missed here. I
will do that.
> 3. Can you please prepare a separate patch for test case changes so
> that it would be easier to verify that it fails without the patch and
> passed after the patch?
ok
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case. > > I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it > > won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems > > that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment > > here in that regard would be a good idea. > > Should we also consider the case that if the user just passed > skip_empty_streams to true then we should automatically set > skip_empty_xacts to true? > Is there any problem if we don't do this? Actually, adding dependencies on parameters is confusing so I want to avoid that unless it is really required. > And we will allow the 'skip_empty_streams' parameter only if > stream-changes' is true. > Can't we simply ignore 'skip_empty_streams' if 'stream-changes' is not given? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case. > > > I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it > > > won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems > > > that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment > > > here in that regard would be a good idea. > > > > Should we also consider the case that if the user just passed > > skip_empty_streams to true then we should automatically set > > skip_empty_xacts to true? > > > > Is there any problem if we don't do this? Actually, adding > dependencies on parameters is confusing so I want to avoid that unless > it is really required. > > > And we will allow the 'skip_empty_streams' parameter only if > > stream-changes' is true. The reason behind this thought is that if the user doesn't pass any value for 'skip_empty_xacts' then the default value will be false and if the user only pass 'skip_empty_streams' to true then we will error out assuming that skip_empty_xacts is false but skip_empty_streams is true. So it seems instead of error out we can assume that skip_empty_streams true mean skip_empty_xacts is also true if nothing is passed for that. > Can't we simply ignore 'skip_empty_streams' if 'stream-changes' is not given? Yeah, we can do that. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case. > > > > I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it > > > > won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems > > > > that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment > > > > here in that regard would be a good idea. > > > > > > Should we also consider the case that if the user just passed > > > skip_empty_streams to true then we should automatically set > > > skip_empty_xacts to true? > > > > > > > Is there any problem if we don't do this? Actually, adding > > dependencies on parameters is confusing so I want to avoid that unless > > it is really required. > > > > > And we will allow the 'skip_empty_streams' parameter only if > > > stream-changes' is true. > > The reason behind this thought is that if the user doesn't pass any > value for 'skip_empty_xacts' then the default value will be false and > if the user only pass 'skip_empty_streams' to true then we will error > out assuming that skip_empty_xacts is false but skip_empty_streams is > true. So it seems instead of error out we can assume that > skip_empty_streams true mean skip_empty_xacts is also true if nothing > is passed for that. > So, let's see the overall picture here. We can have four options: skip_empty_xacts = true, skip_empty_stream = false; skip_empty_xacts = true, skip_empty_stream = true; skip_empty_xacts = false, skip_empty_stream = false; skip_empty_xacts = false, skip_empty_stream = true; I think we want to say the first three could be supported and for the last one either we can either give an error or make its behavior similar to option-2? Is this what your understanding as well? Another thing I am thinking let's just not expose skip_empty_stream to the user and consider the behavior based on the value of skip_empty_xacts. Internally, in the code, we can still have different variables to distinguish between empty_xacts and empty_streams. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case. > > > > > I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it > > > > > won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems > > > > > that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment > > > > > here in that regard would be a good idea. > > > > > > > > Should we also consider the case that if the user just passed > > > > skip_empty_streams to true then we should automatically set > > > > skip_empty_xacts to true? > > > > > > > > > > Is there any problem if we don't do this? Actually, adding > > > dependencies on parameters is confusing so I want to avoid that unless > > > it is really required. > > > > > > > And we will allow the 'skip_empty_streams' parameter only if > > > > stream-changes' is true. > > > > The reason behind this thought is that if the user doesn't pass any > > value for 'skip_empty_xacts' then the default value will be false and > > if the user only pass 'skip_empty_streams' to true then we will error > > out assuming that skip_empty_xacts is false but skip_empty_streams is > > true. So it seems instead of error out we can assume that > > skip_empty_streams true mean skip_empty_xacts is also true if nothing > > is passed for that. > > > > So, let's see the overall picture here. We can have four options: > skip_empty_xacts = true, skip_empty_stream = false; > skip_empty_xacts = true, skip_empty_stream = true; > skip_empty_xacts = false, skip_empty_stream = false; > skip_empty_xacts = false, skip_empty_stream = true; > > I think we want to say the first three could be supported and for the > last one either we can either give an error or make its behavior > similar to option-2? Is this what your understanding as well? For the last one if the user has specifically passed false for the skip_empty_xacts then error and if the user did not pass anything for skip_empty_xacts then make its behavior similar to option-2. > Another thing I am thinking let's just not expose skip_empty_stream to > the user and consider the behavior based on the value of > skip_empty_xacts. Internally, in the code, we can still have different > variables to distinguish between empty_xacts and empty_streams. Yeah, even I think in most of the cases it makes more sense to have skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_stream similar values. So better we don't expose skip_empty_stream. I agree that we need to keep two variables to track the empty stream and empty xacts. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:29 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Another thing I am thinking let's just not expose skip_empty_stream to > > the user and consider the behavior based on the value of > > skip_empty_xacts. Internally, in the code, we can still have different > > variables to distinguish between empty_xacts and empty_streams. > > Yeah, even I think in most of the cases it makes more sense to have > skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_stream similar values. So better we > don't expose skip_empty_stream. I agree that we need to keep two > variables to track the empty stream and empty xacts. > So, let's try to do this way and if we see any problems then we can re-think. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 11:37 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:29 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > Another thing I am thinking let's just not expose skip_empty_stream to
> > the user and consider the behavior based on the value of
> > skip_empty_xacts. Internally, in the code, we can still have different
> > variables to distinguish between empty_xacts and empty_streams.
>
> Yeah, even I think in most of the cases it makes more sense to have
> skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_stream similar values. So better we
> don't expose skip_empty_stream. I agree that we need to keep two
> variables to track the empty stream and empty xacts.
>
So, let's try to do this way and if we see any problems then we can re-think.
Sounds good to me, I will send the updated patch.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For this case, users can use skip_empty_xacts = true and
> > > > skip_empty_streams = false. I am just asking if the user has only used
> > > > skip_empty_xacts = true and didn't use the 'skip_empty_streams'
> > > > option.
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> > >
> >
> > I have prepared a patch for the same.
> >
>
> Few comments:
> 1.
> + else if (strcmp(elem->defname, "skip-empty-streams") == 0)
> + {
> + if (elem->arg == NULL)
> + data->skip_empty_streams = true;
> + else if (!parse_bool(strVal(elem->arg), &data->skip_empty_streams))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> + errmsg("could not parse value \"%s\" for parameter \"%s\"",
> + strVal(elem->arg), elem->defname)));
> + if (!data->skip_empty_xacts && data->skip_empty_streams)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> + errmsg("the skip-empty-streams can not be true if skip-empty-xacts
> is false")));
> }
>
> You can probably add a comment as to why we are disallowing this case.
> I thought of considering 'stream-changes' parameter here because it
> won't make sense to give this parameter without it, however, it seems
> that is not necessary but maybe adding a comment
> here in that regard would be a good idea.
As per our latest discussion, I have removed the extra input parameter
so this comment is not needed now.
> 2.
> pg_decode_begin_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> {
> TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
> + TestDecodingTxnData *txndata =
> + MemoryContextAllocZero(ctx->context, sizeof(TestDecodingTxnData));
> +
>
> Shall we free this memory at commit time for the sake of consistency,
> otherwise also it would be freed with decoding context?
Done
> 3. Can you please prepare a separate patch for test case changes so
> that it would be easier to verify that it fails without the patch and
> passed after the patch?
Done
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:10 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3. Can you please prepare a separate patch for test case changes so
> > that it would be easier to verify that it fails without the patch and
> > passed after the patch?
>
> Done
>
Few comments:
=================
1.
-- consume DDL
SELECT data FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('isolation_slot',
NULL, NULL, 'include-xids', '0', 'skip-empty-xacts', '1');
- CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION large_val() RETURNS TEXT LANGUAGE SQL AS
'select array_agg(md5(g::text))::text from generate_series(1, 80000)
g';
+ CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION large_val() RETURNS TEXT LANGUAGE SQL AS
'select array_agg(md5(g::text))::text from generate_series(1, 60000)
g';
}
Is there a reason for this change? I think probably here a lesser
number of rows are sufficient to serve the purpose of the test but I
am not sure if it is related to this patch or there is any other
reason behind this change?
2.
+typedef struct
+{
+ bool xact_wrote_changes;
+ bool stream_wrote_changes;
+} TestDecodingTxnData;
+
I think here a comment explaining why we need this as a separate
structure would be better and probably explain why we need two
different members.
3.
pg_decode_commit_txn()
{
..
- if (data->skip_empty_xacts && !data->xact_wrote_changes)
+ pfree(txndata);
+ txn->output_plugin_private = false;
+
Here, don't we need to set txn->output_plugin_private as NULL as it is
a pointer and we do explicitly test it for being NULL at other places?
Also, change at other places where it is set as false.
4.
@@ -592,10 +610,24 @@ pg_decode_stream_start(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
{
TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
+ TestDecodingTxnData *txndata = txn->output_plugin_private;
- data->xact_wrote_changes = false;
+ /*
+ * If this is the first stream for the txn then allocate the txn plugin
+ * data and set the xact_wrote_changes to false.
+ */
+ if (txndata == NULL)
+ {
+ txndata =
As we are explicitly testing for NULL here, isn't it better to
explicitly initialize 'output_plugin_private' with NULL in
ReorderBufferGetTXN?
5.
@@ -633,8 +666,18 @@ pg_decode_stream_abort(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
XLogRecPtr abort_lsn)
{
TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
+ ReorderBufferTXN *toptxn = txn->toptxn ? txn->toptxn : txn;
+ TestDecodingTxnData *txndata = toptxn->output_plugin_private;
+ bool xact_wrote_changes = txndata->xact_wrote_changes;
- if (data->skip_empty_xacts && !data->xact_wrote_changes)
+ if (txn->toptxn == NULL)
+ {
+ Assert(txn->output_plugin_private != NULL);
+ pfree(txndata);
+ txn->output_plugin_private = false;
+ }
+
Here, if we are expecting 'output_plugin_private' to be set only for
toptxn then the Assert and reset should happen for toptxn? I find the
changes in this function a bit unclear so probably adding a comment
here could help.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:10 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Can you please prepare a separate patch for test case changes so
> > > that it would be easier to verify that it fails without the patch and
> > > passed after the patch?
> >
> > Done
> >
>
> Few comments:
> =================
> 1.
> -- consume DDL
> SELECT data FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('isolation_slot',
> NULL, NULL, 'include-xids', '0', 'skip-empty-xacts', '1');
> - CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION large_val() RETURNS TEXT LANGUAGE SQL AS
> 'select array_agg(md5(g::text))::text from generate_series(1, 80000)
> g';
> + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION large_val() RETURNS TEXT LANGUAGE SQL AS
> 'select array_agg(md5(g::text))::text from generate_series(1, 60000)
> g';
> }
>
>
> Is there a reason for this change? I think probably here a lesser
> number of rows are sufficient to serve the purpose of the test but I
> am not sure if it is related to this patch or there is any other
> reason behind this change?
I think I changed for some experiment and got included in the patch so
reverted this.
> 2.
> +typedef struct
> +{
> + bool xact_wrote_changes;
> + bool stream_wrote_changes;
> +} TestDecodingTxnData;
> +
>
> I think here a comment explaining why we need this as a separate
> structure would be better and probably explain why we need two
> different members.
Done
> 3.
> pg_decode_commit_txn()
> {
> ..
> - if (data->skip_empty_xacts && !data->xact_wrote_changes)
> + pfree(txndata);
> + txn->output_plugin_private = false;
> +
>
> Here, don't we need to set txn->output_plugin_private as NULL as it is
> a pointer and we do explicitly test it for being NULL at other places?
> Also, change at other places where it is set as false.
Fixed
> 4.
> @@ -592,10 +610,24 @@ pg_decode_stream_start(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
> ReorderBufferTXN *txn)
> {
> TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
> + TestDecodingTxnData *txndata = txn->output_plugin_private;
>
> - data->xact_wrote_changes = false;
> + /*
> + * If this is the first stream for the txn then allocate the txn plugin
> + * data and set the xact_wrote_changes to false.
> + */
> + if (txndata == NULL)
> + {
> + txndata =
>
> As we are explicitly testing for NULL here, isn't it better to
> explicitly initialize 'output_plugin_private' with NULL in
> ReorderBufferGetTXN?
Done
> 5.
> @@ -633,8 +666,18 @@ pg_decode_stream_abort(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
> XLogRecPtr abort_lsn)
> {
> TestDecodingData *data = ctx->output_plugin_private;
> + ReorderBufferTXN *toptxn = txn->toptxn ? txn->toptxn : txn;
> + TestDecodingTxnData *txndata = toptxn->output_plugin_private;
> + bool xact_wrote_changes = txndata->xact_wrote_changes;
>
> - if (data->skip_empty_xacts && !data->xact_wrote_changes)
> + if (txn->toptxn == NULL)
> + {
> + Assert(txn->output_plugin_private != NULL);
> + pfree(txndata);
> + txn->output_plugin_private = false;
> + }
> +
>
> Here, if we are expecting 'output_plugin_private' to be set only for
> toptxn then the Assert and reset should happen for toptxn? I find the
> changes in this function a bit unclear so probably adding a comment
> here could help.
I have added the comments.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > Pushed after minor changes. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.