public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Chao Li <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Yura Sokolov <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 18:25:28 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPpHfdsF9PjvMDoE0Cko=Xahaoep2kSJmWgJkwhfqVpzd8x35A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<CABPTF7WPRVJGdDeuWo-=3csnDs5FGfUsg97xppPyzoj9fRAMeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7WAcV_uEaJa3jmYPc26rApa64hV5HmjRBN=OS17MAybUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfdvM9Tp1_g1JY9H+cx1H0Q4jH-BZFZGQwgviLNs1HSg+CA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7X0iV=kGC4gjsTj4NvK_NNEJGM3YTc7Obxs5GOiYoMhEw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7UBdEfyxATWntmCfoJrwB6iPrnhkXO7y_Avmqc2bOn27A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfduhQsm44j_ziZ6ykFTDZ2SFvZp04iCrc5_dD9PGZUrhrw@mail.gmail.com>
<d2ogsp54if47w35kx4vu7o3nkfghpuzctwbaudzey5brxavomw@bgfs3p7twoib>
<CABPTF7W7=uK0ypteDLRTiR4PnRP-BEUEJJtit+Q17aiPPhpLrw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7Ukk8iJF7TpnK2mFOaboNJgWL1csfXu4e3J4GT0o7x0GQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfdupZ3ooxmnJvhjx7rnZ7VMcz_uyxGC4drMSEM_P3PtGzw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7WJ35p7uidJJZs7fzxBtbVL_0xSFUdZ2Fe8pXh00e=Mxw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfdufWG032J=fyv1eWoveeyPwqJ57PGU2edA5OsOmexGDTw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABPTF7W-gaO=FAkhda=_pDQJjLne68ioNHHU8vuB4iEnswR1=w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
Hi, Heikki!
On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/05/2026 05:44, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 5:01 AM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >> LGTM, I've added some comments for new functions in 0006. I propose
> >> to push this patchset. Probably something is still missing and we
> >> will have to go back to this. But it seems to make a lot of aspects
> >> much better.
> >
> > I reviewed the patchset and found a potential issue in the test for
> > patch 5, similar to the log-checking problem in the cascading timeline-
> > switch test. I've applied a minor fix to address it. Other parts LGTM.
> I happened to look around this code now. To recap, the code in the main
> WAL redo loop now looks like this:
>
> >
> > /*
> > * Apply the record
> > */
> > ApplyWalRecord(xlogreader, record, &replayTLI);
> >
> > /*
> > * Wake up processes waiting for standby replay, write, or flush
> > * LSN to reach current replay position. Replay implies that the
> > * WAL was already written and flushed to disk, so write and flush
> > * waiters can be woken at the replay position too.
> > */
> > WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_REPLAY,
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr);
> > WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_WRITE,
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr);
> > WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_FLUSH,
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr);
>
> That's not wrong, but I've got some comments:
>
> 1. It's reading XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr without a lock or
> atomics. That's ok, no other process modifies lastReplayedEndRecPtr, but
> it feels a little dirty.
>
> 2. We're now doing three extra function calls on every WAL record. This
> is a very hot path, and most of the time, we'll just take the fast path
> in WaitLSNWakeup to return without doing anything. Andres and others
> assumed up-thread that it's negligible (we used to have pre-checks here
> in the caller), but I wonder if you did any performance testing?
>
> 3. There are other "wakeup" calls inside ApplyWalRecord(), to wake up
> walsenders and walreceivers. They could perhaps use the same wait-lsn
> machinery now, but that's v20 material. However, I think these
> WaitLSNWakeup() calls should also be moved inside ApplyWalRecord(), so
> that we'd have all the wakeup actions in one place.
>
> 4. Once you move those calls inside ApplyWalRecord(), like this:
>
> > @@ -1979,20 +1979,30 @@ ApplyWalRecord(XLogReaderState *xlogreader, XLogRecord *record, TimeLineID *repl
> > /*
> > * Update lastReplayedEndRecPtr after this record has been successfully
> > * replayed.
> > */
> > SpinLockAcquire(&XLogRecoveryCtl->info_lck);
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedReadRecPtr = xlogreader->ReadRecPtr;
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr = xlogreader->EndRecPtr;
> > XLogRecoveryCtl->lastReplayedTLI = *replayTLI;
> > SpinLockRelease(&XLogRecoveryCtl->info_lck);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Wake up processes waiting for standby replay, write, or flush LSN to
> > + * reach current replay position. Replay implies that the WAL was already
> > + * written and flushed to disk, so write and flush waiters can be woken at
> > + * the replay position too.
> > + */
> > + WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_REPLAY, xlogreader->EndRecPtr);
> > + WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_WRITE, xlogreader->EndRecPtr);
> > + WaitLSNWakeup(WAIT_LSN_TYPE_STANDBY_FLUSH, xlogreader->EndRecPtr);
> > +
> > /* ------
> > * Wakeup walsenders:
> > *
> > * On the standby, the WAL is flushed first (which will only wake up
> > * physical walsenders) and then applied, which will only wake up logical
> > * walsenders.
>
> It becomes clear that you don't actually need the memory barrier inside
> WaitLSNWakeup(). Not sure if they're needed for other callers, but here
> we have just released a spinlock, which acts as a memory barrier. It
> might not be worth relaxing, but it does seem a little silly.
>
>
> If nothing else, I'd like to move those calls into ApplyWalRecord() for
> clarity (point 3 above). What do you think?
Thank you for bringing this up.
+1 for moving calls into ApplyWalRecord()
Regarding the overhead. I've tried to apply 158.6 MB of pgbench
generated WAL on my local Macbook M3 Pro.
* With calls, sec: 1.95/1.86/1.91/1.85/1.90
* Without calls, sec: 1.83/1.87/1.96/1.90/1.85
So, the difference is less than the measurement error.
Do you prefer to commit the movement of the calls yourself, or do you
prefer me to do it?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
view thread (29+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdsF9PjvMDoE0Cko=Xahaoep2kSJmWgJkwhfqVpzd8x35A@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox