From: Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com>
To: Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani@google.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:03:44 +0100
Message-ID: <fa7e4243-3e82-46a4-af29-73ab00df4b28@dalibo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB571616A2C303FCED3CF3D67C94C92@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD21AoDoWc8MWTyKtmNF_606bcW6J0gV==r=VmPXKUN-e3o9ew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1KDPryBr-ewsW_Rkh5x0oiqpcOHAF3GAocDUrK2CV+atA@mail.gmail.com>
<OS0PR01MB5716C54EE863184A35C735DE94CD2@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAD21AoBcOkeBgx_c9XXWgjw1YW8KUc9dNtg8XaPY2Q2Vwq7WgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+ubqorurkbWOtpbEd2Vc8QZ_vmUHY3mFgL1fp_1+wK=g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1LZFthizh6LOy7D2-5Kf7vrMJfUqkV3AcYZN0CagCEVJg@mail.gmail.com>
<2e2b2aba-c285-4bfc-a3bd-c55ac2df9568@dalibo.com>
<OS0PR01MB571616A2C303FCED3CF3D67C94C92@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
On 3/3/25 8:41 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> A nitpick with the data for the Concurrent Transaction (2000) case. The results
> show that the HEAD's data appears worse than the patch data, which seems
> unusual. However, I confirmed that the details in the attachment are as expected,
> so, this seems to be a typo. (I assume you intended to use a
> decimal point instead of a comma in the data like (8,43500...))
Hi,
Argh, yes, sorry! I didn't pay enough attention and accidentally
inverted the Patch and Head numbers in the last line when copying them
from the ODS to the email to match the previous report layout.
The comma is due to how decimals are written in my language (comma
instead of dot). I forgot to "translate" it.
Concurrent Txn | Head (sec) | Patch (sec) | Degradation in %
---------------------------------------------------------------------
50 | 0.1797647 | 0.1920949 | 6.85907744957
100 | 0.3693029 | 0.3823425 | 3.53086856344
500 | 1.62265755 | 1.91427485 | 17.97158617972
1000 | 3.01388635 | 3.57678295 | 18.67676928162
2000 | 6.4713304 | 7.0171877 | 8.43500897435
> as Amit pointed out, we will share a new test script soon
> that uses the SQL API xxx_get_changes() to test. It would be great if you could
> verify the performance using the updated script as well.
Will do.
--
Benoit Lobréau
Consultant
http://dalibo.com
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, nitinmotiani@google.com, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, sawada.mshk@gmail.com
Subject: Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication
In-Reply-To: <fa7e4243-3e82-46a4-af29-73ab00df4b28@dalibo.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox