On 2024/10/24 5:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
if (xids_left > 2000 &&
consumed - last_reported_at < REPORT_INTERVAL &&
MyProc->subxidStatus.overflowed)
{
int64 consumed_by_shortcut = consume_xids_shortcut();
if (consumed_by_shortcut > 0)
{
consumed += consumed_by_shortcut;
continue;
}
}
By the way, this isn't directly related to the proposed patch, but while reading
the xid_wraparound code, I noticed that consume_xids_common() could potentially
return an unexpected XID if consume_xids_shortcut() returns a value greater
than 2000. Based on the current logic, consume_xids_common() should always
return
a value less than 2000, so the issue I'm concerned about shouldn't occur.
Good point. Yes, the function doesn't return a value greater than 2000
as long as we do "distance = Min(distance, COMMIT_TS_XACTS_PER_PAGE -
rem);". But it's true with <= 16KB block sizes.
Still,
would it be worth adding an assertion to ensure that consume_xids_common() never
returns a value greater than 2000?
While adding an assertion makes sense to me, another idea is to set
last_xid even in the shortcut path. That way, it works even with 32KB
block size.
Agreed on making xid_wraparound compatible with a 32k block size. As you
pointed out,
with 32k blocks, XidSkip() can return values greater than 2000. So, the first
step is
to adjust the following if-condition by increasing "2000" to a higher value.
Since XidSkip() can return up to 3276 (based on COMMIT_TS_XACTS_PER_PAGE
(BLCKSZ / 10) with 32k blocks),
we could, for instance, update "2000" to "4000."
if (xids_left > 2000 &&
consumed - last_reported_at < REPORT_INTERVAL &&
MyProc->subxidStatus.overflowed)
To ensure lastxid is set even in the shortcut case, what about modifying
XidSkip()
so it returns "distance - 1" instead of "distance"? This change would make
consume_xids_common() run at least one more loop cycle,
triggering GetNewTransactionId() and setting lastxid correctly.
consumed = XidSkip(nextXid);
if (consumed > 0)
TransamVariables->nextXid.value += (uint64) consumed;
BTW, the code snippet above in consume_xids_shortcut() could potentially set
the next XID to a value below FirstNormalTransactionId? If yes, we should
account for
FirstNormalFullTransactionId when increasing the next XID, similar to
how FullTransactionIdAdvance() handles it.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
