public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <[email protected]>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
Cc: Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:12:40 +0000
Message-ID: <TYAPR01MB5866ECFC52FAED493007A2CEF5C99@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JTTCcMrsMAmz9LSEE6gvGHnTK0u1w0kg9hV6rcFFB5hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHut+Puwrb_DEV_7ANSKrQr23-dAmL9vrNV8ww7XsAP+kej0uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<TYCPR01MB8373BED9E390C4839AF56685EDC59@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<TYCPR01MB8373A23EFC25B22CB132383AEDCB9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1JTTCcMrsMAmz9LSEE6gvGHnTK0u1w0kg9hV6rcFFB5hQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Amit, Horiguchi-san,

> >
> > send_feedback():
> > +        * If the subscriber side apply is delayed (because of time-delayed
> > +        * replication) then do not tell the publisher that the received latest
> > +        * LSN is already applied and flushed, otherwise, it leads to the
> > +        * publisher side making a wrong assumption of logical replication
> > +        * progress. Instead, we just send a feedback message to avoid a
> publisher
> > +        * timeout during the delay.
> >          */
> > -       if (!have_pending_txes)
> > +       if (!have_pending_txes && !in_delayed_apply)
> >                 flushpos = writepos = recvpos;
> >
> > Honestly I don't like this wart. The reason for this is the function
> > assumes recvpos = applypos but we actually call it while holding
> > unapplied changes, that is, applypos < recvpos.
> >
> > Couldn't we maintain an additional static variable "last_applied"
> > along with last_received?
> >
> 
> It won't be easy to maintain the meaning of last_applied because there
> are cases where we don't apply the change directly. For example, in
> case of streaming xacts, we will just keep writing it to the file,
> now, say, due to some reason, we have to send the feedback, then it
> will not allow you to update the latest write locations. This would
> then become different then what we are doing without the patch.
> Another point to think about is that we also need to keep the variable
> updated for keep-alive ('k') messages even though we don't apply
> anything in that case. Still, other cases to consider are where we
> have mix of streaming and non-streaming transactions.

I have tried to implement that, but it might be difficult because of a corner
case related with the initial data sync.

First of all, I have made last_applied to update when

* transactions are committed, prepared, or aborted
* apply worker receives keepalive message.

I thought during the initial data sync, we must not update the last applied
triggered by keepalive messages, so following lines were added just after
updating last_received.

```
+                                               if (last_applied < end_lsn && AllTablesyncsReady())
+                                                       last_applied = end_lsn;
```

However, if data is synchronizing and workers receive the non-committable WAL,
this condition cannot be satisfied. 009_matviews.pl tests such a case, and I
got a failure there. In this test MATERIALIZED VIEW is created on publisher and then
the WAL is replicated to subscriber, but the transaction is not committed because
logical replication does not support the statement.
If we change the condition, we may the system may become inconsistent because the
worker replies that all remote WALs are applied even if tablesync workers are
synchronizing data.

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

view thread (2+ messages)

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]
  Subject: RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
  In-Reply-To: <TYAPR01MB5866ECFC52FAED493007A2CEF5C99@TYAPR01MB5866.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