public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <[email protected]>
To: Ajin Cherian <[email protected]>
Cc: Давыдов Виталий <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:07:33 +0000
Message-ID: <OSBPR01MB2552027CDBB9104D920AA1E8F5052@OSBPR01MB2552.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1K1fSkeK=kc26G5cq87vQG4=1qs_b+no4+ep654SeBy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8fab8-65d74c80-1-2f28e880@39088166>
<CAA4eK1KOs3s6syZqUgrd2WvjTz64SGf0ToZcRoPMCKKH+M0YFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<99df2-65d8d200-1-63c26880@172687752>
<CAA4eK1KtjjPxe5tjWeGNf5CfF9qfceVQCCC9XGsKzR-ifQD9uA@mail.gmail.com>
<ba4b6-65ddc580-9-5c3e3080@134362348>
<CAA4eK1J6wOMkDDt3iOs+JqkvQvuwSORosTpqdejgvXqFmxex=A@mail.gmail.com>
<badcf-65dde500-3-24ba3c80@28790566>
<cedbe-65e0c000-1-6db17700@133269862>
<[email protected]>
<f9f1b-65e72c80-7-533dda00@76203995>
<CAFPTHDbU4EkVmKL66i5BzrmQ6LFftQPx_TZ1euKt9fvVzQDyjA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+n7M2S1OpoGWDd+YZkDCuURMdVRbvP0eELQUvWgmDneg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFPTHDa=pJSZ_4dV5DPAOapRSgPcyyUTP0WzGY2Rz_D3-gwraw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1K1fSkeK=kc26G5cq87vQG4=1qs_b+no4+ep654SeBy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Amit,
> One naive idea is that on the publisher we can remember whether the
> prepare has been sent and if so then only send commit_prepared,
> otherwise send the entire transaction. On the subscriber-side, we
> somehow, need to ensure before applying the first change whether the
> corresponding transaction is already prepared and if so then skip the
> changes and just perform the commit prepared. One drawback of this
> approach is that after restart, the prepare flag wouldn't be saved in
> the memory and we end up sending the entire transaction again. One way
> to avoid this overhead is that the publisher before sending the entire
> transaction checks with subscriber whether it has a prepared
> transaction corresponding to the current commit. I understand that
> this is not a good idea even if it works but I don't have any better
> ideas. What do you think?
Alternative idea is that worker pass a list of prepared transaction as new
option in START_REPLICATION. This can reduce the number of inter-node
communications, but sometimes the list may be huge.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
https://www.fujitsu.com/
view thread (9+ 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]
Subject: RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR
In-Reply-To: <OSBPR01MB2552027CDBB9104D920AA1E8F5052@OSBPR01MB2552.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.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