On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 12:25, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with all your other comments.
Thanks for addressing the comments. Below is the continuation of my
comments from 0014-Allow-execution-and-discard-of-undo-by-background-wo.patch
:
+ * Perform rollback request. We need to connect to the database for first
+ * request and that is required because we access system tables while
for first request and that is required => for the first request. This
is required
---------------
+UndoLauncherShmemSize(void)
+{
+ Size size;
+
+ /*
+ * Need the fixed struct and the array of LogicalRepWorker.
+ */
+ size = sizeof(UndoApplyCtxStruct);
The fixed structure size should be offsetof(UndoApplyCtxStruct,
workers) rather than sizeof(UndoApplyCtxStruct)
---------------
In UndoWorkerCleanup(), we set individual fields of the
UndoApplyWorker structure, whereas in UndoLauncherShmemInit(), for all
the UndoApplyWorker array elements, we just memset all the
UndoApplyWorker structure elements to 0. I think we should be
consistent for the two cases. I guess we can just memset to 0 as you
do in UndoLauncherShmemInit(), but this will cause the
worker->undo_worker_queue to be 0 i.e. XID_QUEUE , whereas in
UndoWorkerCleanup(), it is set to -1. Is the -1 value essential, or we
can just set it to XID_QUEUE initially ?
Also, if we just use memset in UndoWorkerCleanup(), we need to first
save generation into a temp variable, and then after memset(), restore
it back.
That brought me to another point :
We already have a macro ResetUndoRequestInfo(), so UndoWorkerCleanup()
can just call ResetUndoRequestInfo().
------------
+ bool allow_peek;
+
+ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
+
+ allow_peek = !TimestampDifferenceExceeds(started_at,
Some comments would be good about what is allow_peek used for. Something like :
"Arrange to prevent the worker from restarting quickly to switch databases"
-----------------
+++ b/src/backend/access/undo/README.UndoProcessing
-----------------
+worker then start reading from one of the queues the requests for that
start=>starts
---------------
+work, it lingers for UNDO_WORKER_LINGER_MS (10s as default). This avoids
As per the latest definition, it is 20s. IMHO, there's no need to
mention the default value in the readme.
---------------
+++ b/src/backend/access/undo/discardworker.c
---------------
+ * portion of transaction that is overflowed into a separate log can
be processed
80-col crossed.
+#include "access/undodiscard.h"
+#include "access/discardworker.h"
Not in alphabetical order
+++ b/src/backend/access/undo/undodiscard.c
---------------
+ next_insert = UndoLogGetNextInsertPtr(logno);
I checked UndoLogGetNextInsertPtr() definition. It calls
find_undo_log_slot() to get back the slot from logno. Why not make it
accept slot as against logno ? At all other places, the slot->logno is
passed, so it is convenient to just pass the slot there. And in
UndoDiscardOneLog(), first call find_undo_log_slot() just before the
above line (or call it at the end of the do-while loop). This way,
during each of the UndoLogGetNextInsertPtr() calls in undorequest.c,
we will have one less find_undo_log_slot() call. My suggestion is of
course valid only under the assumption that when you call
UndoLogGetNextInsertPtr(fooslot->logno), then inside
UndoLogGetNextInsertPtr(), find_undo_log_slot() will return back the
same fooslot.
-------------
In UndoDiscardOneLog(), there are at least 2 variable declarations
that can be moved inside the do-while loop : uur and next_insert. I am
not sure about the other variables viz : undofxid and
latest_discardxid. Values of these variables in one iteration continue
across to the second iteration. For latest_discardxid, it looks like
we do want its value to be carried forward, but is it also true for
undofxid ?
+ /* If we reach here, this means there is something to discard. */
+ need_discard = true;
+ } while (true);
Also, about need_discard; there is no place where need_discard is set
to false. That means, from 2nd iteration onwards, it will never be
false. So even if the code that explicitly sets need_discard to true
does not get run, still the undolog will be discarded. Is this
expected ?
-------------
+ if (request_rollback && dbid_exists(uur->uur_txn->urec_dbid))
+ {
+ (void) RegisterRollbackReq(InvalidUndoRecPtr,
+ undo_recptr,
+ uur->uur_txn->urec_dbid,
+ uur->uur_fxid);
+
+ pending_abort = true;
+ }
We can get rid of request_rollback variable. Whatever the "if" block
above is doing, do it in this upper condition :
if (!IsXactApplyProgressCompleted(uur->uur_txn->urec_progress))
Something like this :
if (!IsXactApplyProgressCompleted(uur->uur_txn->urec_progress))
{
if (dbid_exists(uur->uur_txn->urec_dbid))
{
(void) RegisterRollbackReq(InvalidUndoRecPtr,
undo_recptr,
uur->uur_txn->urec_dbid,
uur->uur_fxid);
pending_abort = true;
}
}
-------------
+ UndoRecordRelease(uur);
+ uur = NULL;
+ }
.....
.....
+ Assert(uur == NULL);
+
+ /* If we reach here, this means there is something to discard. */
+ need_discard = true;
+ } while (true);
Looks like it is neither necessary to set uur to NULL, nor is it
necessary to have the Assert(uur == NULL). At the start of each
iteration uur is anyway assigned a fresh value, which may or may not
be NULL.
-------------
+ * over undo logs is complete, new undo can is allowed to be written in the
new undo can is allowed => new undo is allowed
+ * hash table size. So before start allowing any new transaction to write the
before start allowing => before allowing any new transactions to start
writing the
-------------
+ /* Get the smallest of 'xid having pending undo' and 'oldestXmin' */
+ oldestXidHavingUndo = RollbackHTGetOldestFullXid(oldestXidHavingUndo);
+ ....
+ ....
+ if (FullTransactionIdIsValid(oldestXidHavingUndo))
+ pg_atomic_write_u64(&ProcGlobal->oldestFullXidHavingUnappliedUndo,
+ U64FromFullTransactionId(oldestXidHavingUndo));
Is it possible that the FullTransactionId returned by
RollbackHTGetOldestFullXid() could be invalid ? If not, then the if
condition above can be changed to an Assert().
-------------
+ * If the log is already discarded, then we are done. It is important
+ * to first check this to ensure that tablespace containing this log
+ * doesn't get dropped concurrently.
+ */
+ LWLockAcquire(&slot->mutex, LW_SHARED);
+ /*
+ * We don't have to worry about slot recycling and check the logno
+ * here, since we don't care about the identity of this slot, we're
+ * visiting all of them.
I guess, it's accidental that the LWLockAcquire() call is *between*
the two comments ?
-----------
+ if (UndoRecPtrGetCategory(undo_recptr) == UNDO_SHARED)
+ {
+ /*
+ * For the "shared" category, we only discard when the
+ * rm_undo_status callback tells us we can.
+ */
+ status = RmgrTable[uur->uur_rmid].rm_undo_status(uur,
&wait_xid);
status variable could be declared in this block itself.
-------------
Some variable declaration alignments and comments spacing need changes
as per pgindent.
--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
