RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

On Monday, November 21, 2022 8:34  PMhouzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 6:49 PM Amit Kapila
> <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 7:56 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:50 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 7:58 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that I didn't add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS while retrying
> > > > send
> > message.
> > > > So, attach the new version which adds that. Also attach the 0004
> > > > patch that restarts logical replication with temporarily disabling
> > > > the parallel apply if failed to apply a transaction in parallel apply worker.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Few comments on v48-0001
> 
> Thanks for the comments !
> 
> > > ======================
> > >
> >
> > I have made quite a few changes in the comments, added some new
> > comments, and made other cosmetic changes in the attached patch. The is
> atop v48-0001*.
> > If these look okay to you, please include them in the next version.
> > Apart from these, I have a few more comments on
> > v48-0001*
> 
> Thanks, I have checked and merge them.
> 
> > 1.
> > +static bool
> > +pa_can_start(TransactionId xid)
> > +{
> > + if (!TransactionIdIsValid(xid))
> > + return false;
> >
> > The caller (see caller of pa_start_worker) already has a check that
> > xid passed here is valid, so I think this should be an Assert unless I
> > am missing something in which case it is better to add a comment here.
> 
> Changed to an Assert().
> 
> > 2. Will it be better to rename pa_start_worker() as
> > pa_allocate_worker() because it sometimes gets the worker from the
> > pool and also allocate the hash entry for worker info? That will even
> > match the corresponding pa_free_worker().
> 
> Agreed and changed.
> 
> > 3.
> > +pa_start_subtrans(TransactionId current_xid, TransactionId top_xid)
> > {
> > ...
> > +
> > + oldctx = MemoryContextSwitchTo(ApplyContext);
> > + subxactlist = lappend_xid(subxactlist, current_xid);
> > + MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldctx);
> > ...
> >
> > Why do we need to allocate this list in a permanent context? IIUC, we
> > need to use this to maintain subxacts so that it can be later used to
> > find the given subxact at the time of rollback to savepoint in the
> > current in-progress transaction, so why do we need it beyond the
> > transaction being applied? If there is a reason for the same, it would
> > be better to add some comments for the same.
> 
> I think you are right, I changed to use TopTransactionContext here.
> 
> > 4.
> > +pa_stream_abort(LogicalRepStreamAbortData *abort_data)
> > {
> > ...
> > +
> > + for (i = list_length(subxactlist) - 1; i >= 0; i--) { TransactionId
> > + xid_tmp = lfirst_xid(list_nth_cell(subxactlist, i));
> > +
> > + if (xid_tmp == subxid)
> > + {
> > + found = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (found)
> > + {
> > + RollbackToSavepoint(spname);
> > + CommitTransactionCommand();
> > + subxactlist = list_truncate(subxactlist, i + 1); }
> >
> > I was thinking whether we can have an Assert(false) for the not found
> > case but it seems if all the changes of a subxact have been skipped
> > then probably subxid corresponding to "rollback to savepoint" won't be
> > found in subxactlist and we don't need to do anything for it. If that
> > is the case, then probably adding a comment for it would be a good
> > idea, otherwise, we can probably have
> > Assert(false) in the else case.
> 
> Yes, we might not find the xid for an empty subtransaction. I added some
> comments here for the same.
> 
> Apart from above, I also addressed the comments in [1] and fixed a bug that
> parallel worker exits silently while the leader cannot detect that. In the latest
> patch, the parallel apply worker will send a notify('X') message to leader so that
> leader can detect the exit.
> 
> Here is the new version patch.

I noticed that I missed a header file causing CFbot to complain.
Attach a new version patch set which fix that.

Best regards,
Hou zj