On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On a first read-through of this patch -- I have not studied it in
> detail yet -- this looks pretty good to me. One concern is that this
> patch adds a bit of code to XLogInsert(), which is a very hot piece of
> code. Conceivably, that might produce a regression even when this is
> disabled; if so, we'd probably need to make it a build-time option. I
> hope that's not necessary, because I think it would be great to
> compile this into the server by default, but we better make sure it's
> not a problem. A bulk load into an existing table might be a good
> test case.
>
I've done some bulk load testing with 16,32,64 clients. I didn't
notice any regression
in the results.
> Aside from that, I think the biggest issue here is that the masking
> functions are virtually free of comments, whereas I think they should
> have extensive and detailed comments. For example, in heap_mask, you
> have this:
>
> + page_htup->t_infomask =
> + HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED | HEAP_XMIN_INVALID |
> + HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED | HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
>
> For something like this, you could write "We want to ignore
> differences in hint bits, since they can be set by SetHintBits without
> emitting WAL. Force them all to be set so that we don't notice
> discrepancies." Actually, though, I think that you could be a bit
> more nuanced here: HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED + HEAP_XMIN_INVALID =
> HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN, so maybe what you should do is clear
> HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED and HEAP_XMAX_INVALID but only clear the others if
> one is set but not both.
>
I've modified it as follows:
+
+ if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup))
+ page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK;
+ else
+ page_htup->t_infomask |=
HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED | HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
> Anyway, leaving that aside, I think every single change that gets
> masked in every single masking routine needs a similar comment,
> explaining why that change can happen on the master without also
> happening on the standby and hopefully referring to the code that
> makes that unlogged change.
>
I've added comments for all the masking routines.
> I think wal_consistency_checking, as proposed by Peter, is better than
> wal_consistency_check, as implemented.
>
Modified to wal_consistency_checking.
> Having StartupXLOG() call pfree() on the masking buffers is a waste of
> code. The process is going to exit anyway.
>
> + "Inconsistent page found, rel %u/%u/%u, forknum %u, blkno
> %u",
>
Done.
> Primary error messages aren't capitalized.
>
> + if (!XLogRecGetBlockTag(record, block_id, &rnode, &forknum, &blkno))
> + {
> + /* Caller specified a bogus block_id. Do nothing. */
> + continue;
> + }
>
> Why would the caller do something so dastardly?
>
Modified to following comment:
+ /*
+ * WAL record doesn't contain a block reference
+ * with the given id. Do nothing.
+ */
I've attached the patch with the modified changes. PFA.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
walconsistency_v16.patch
Description: application/download
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
