Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Smith
Тема Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR
Дата
Msg-id CAHut+PvMNSNhgWBL6jMEx0d64c0u6F7dJnPd2yTMCCyVGg_UbQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
Ответы RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi Kuroda-san. Here are my review comments for latest v10* patches.

//////////
patch v10-0001
//////////

No changes. No comments.

//////////
patch v10-0002
//////////

======
Commit message

2.1.
Regarding the false->true case, the backend process alters the subtwophase to
LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING once. After the subscription is enabled, a new
logical replication worker requests to change the two_phase option of its slot
from pending to true after the initial data synchronization is done. The code
path is the same as the case in which two_phase is initially set to true, so
there is no need to do something remarkable. However, for the true->false case,
the backend must connect to the publisher and expressly change the parameter
because the apply worker does not alter the option to false. The
operation cannot
be rolled back, and altering the parameter from "true" to "false" within a
transaction is prohibited.

~

BEFORE
The operation cannot be rolled back, and altering the parameter from
"true" to "false" within a transaction is prohibited.

SUGGESTION
Because this operation cannot be rolled back, altering the two_phase
parameter from "true" to "false" within a transaction is prohibited.

======
doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml

2.2.
    <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (failover = on|off)</command> and
-   <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (two_phase = on|off)</command>
+   <command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (two_phase = off)</command>

I wasn't sure why you chose to keep on|off here instead of true|false,
since in subsequence patch 0003 you changed it true/false everywhere
as discussed in previous reviews.

OTOH if you only did this to be consistent with the "failover=on|off"
then that is OK; but in that case I might raise a separate hackers
thread to propose those should also be changed to true|false for
consistency with the parameer listed on the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION page.
What do you think?

======
src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c

2.3.
  /*
- * The changed two_phase option of the slot can't be rolled
- * back.
+ * Altering the parameter from "true" to "false" within a
+ * transaction is prohibited. Since the apply worker does
+ * not alter the slot option to false, the backend must
+ * connect to the publisher and expressly change the
+ * parameter.
+ *
+ * There is no need to do something remarkable regarding
+ * the "false" to "true" case; the backend process alters
+ * subtwophase to LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING once.
+ * After the subscription is enabled, a new logical
+ * replication worker requests to change the two_phase
+ * option of its slot when the initial data synchronization
+ * is done. The code path is the same as the case in which
+ * two_phase is initially set to true.
  */

BEFORE
...worker requests to change the two_phase option of its slot when...

SUGGESTION
...worker requests to change the two_phase option of its slot from
pending to true when...

======
src/test/subscription/t/099_twophase_added.pl

2.4.
+#####################
+# Check the case that prepared transactions exist on the publisher node.
+#
+# Since the two_phase is "off", then normally, this PREPARE will do nothing
+# until the COMMIT PREPARED, but in this test, we toggle the two_phase to
+# "true" again before the COMMIT PREPARED happens.

/Since the two_phase is "off"/Since the two_phase is "false"/

//////////
patch v10-0003
//////////

======
src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c

3.1. AlterSubscription

+ * If two_phase was enabled, there is a possibility that
+ * transactions have already been PREPARE'd. They must be
+ * checked and rolled back.
  */
  if (!opts.twophase)

I think it will less ambiguous if you modify this to say "If two_phase
was previously enabled"

~~~

3.2.
if (!opts.twophase)
{
List *prepared_xacts;

/*
* Altering the parameter from "true" to "false" within
* a transaction is prohibited. Since the apply worker
* does not alter the slot option to false, the backend
* must connect to the publisher and expressly change
* the parameter.
*
* There is no need to do something remarkable
* regarding the "false" to "true" case; the backend
* process alters subtwophase to
* LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING once. After the
* subscription is enabled, a new logical replication
* worker requests to change the two_phase option of
* its slot when the initial data synchronization is
* done. The code path is the same as the case in which
* two_phase is initially set to true.
*/
if (!opts.twophase)
PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel,
"ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (two_phase = false)");

/*
* To prevent prepared transactions from being
* isolated, they must manually be aborted.
*/
if (sub->twophasestate == LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_ENABLED &&
(prepared_xacts = GetGidListBySubid(subid)) != NIL)
{
/* Abort all listed transactions */
foreach_ptr(char, gid, prepared_xacts)
FinishPreparedTransaction(gid, false);

list_free_deep(prepared_xacts);
}
}

/* Change system catalog acoordingly */
values[Anum_pg_subscription_subtwophasestate - 1] =
CharGetDatum(opts.twophase ?
LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING :
LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_DISABLED);
replaces[Anum_pg_subscription_subtwophasestate - 1] = true;
}

~

Why is "if (!opts.twophase)" being checked at the top and then
immediately being checed again here:
+ if (!opts.twophase)
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel,
+ "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (two_phase = false)");

And then again here:
CharGetDatum(opts.twophase ?
LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING :
LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_DISABLED);

There is no need to re-check a flag that was already checked, so
clearly some of this logic/code is either wrong or redundant.

======
src/test/subscription/t/099_twophase_added.pl

(Let's change these on|off to true|false to match what you did already
in patch 0002).

3.3.
+#####################
+# Check the case that prepared transactions exist on the subscriber node
+#
+# If the two_phase is altering from "on" to "off" and there are prepared
+# transactions on the subscriber, they must be aborted. This test checks it.


/off/false/

/on/true/

~~~

3.4.
+# Verify the prepared transaction has been replicated to the subscriber because
+# two_phase is set to "on".

/on/true/

~~~

3.5.
+# Toggle the two_phase to "off" before the COMMIT PREPARED
+$node_subscriber->safe_psql(
+    'postgres', "
+    ALTER SUBSCRIPTION regress_sub DISABLE;
+    ALTER SUBSCRIPTION regress_sub SET (two_phase = off);
+    ALTER SUBSCRIPTION regress_sub ENABLE;");

/off/false/

/two_phase = off/two_phase = false/

~~~

3.6.
+# Verify any prepared transactions are aborted because two_phase is changed to
+# "off".

/off/false/

//////////
patch v10-0004
//////////

======
4.g1. GENERAL - document rendering fails

FYI - The document failed to build after I apply patch 0003. Did you try it?

In my environment it reported some unbalanced tags:

ref/create_subscription.sgml:448: parser error : Opening and ending
tag mismatch: link line 436 and para
         </para>
                ^
ref/create_subscription.sgml:449: parser error : Opening and ending
tag mismatch: para line 435 and listitem
        </listitem>

etc.

======
doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml

4.1.
      <para>
       The <literal>two_phase</literal> parameter can only be altered when the
-      subscription is disabled. When altering the parameter from
<literal>true</literal>
-      to <literal>false</literal>, the backend process checks for any
incomplete
-      prepared transactions done by the logical replication worker (from when
-      <literal>two_phase</literal> parameter was still <literal>true</literal>)
-      and, if any are found, those are aborted.
+      subscription is disabled. Altering the parameter from
<literal>true</literal>
+      to <literal>false</literal> will give an error when when there are
+      prepared transactions done by the logical replication worker. If you want
+      to alter the parameter forcibly in this case,
+      <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-force-alter"><literal>force_alter</literal></link>
+      option must be set to <literal>true</literal> at the same time.
      </para>

TYPO: "when when"

Why is necessary to say "at the same time"?

======
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_subscription.sgml

4.2.
+       <varlistentry id="sql-createsubscription-params-with-force-alter">
+        <term><literal>force_alter</literal> (<type>boolean</type>)</term>
+        <listitem>
+         <para>
+          Specifies if the <link
linkend="sql-altersubscription"><command>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION</command>
+          can be forced to proceed instead of giving an error. There is
+          currently only one scenario where this parameter has any effect: When
+          altering <literal>two_phase</literal> option from
<literal>true</literal>
+          to <literal>false</literal> it is possible for there to be incomplete
+          prepared transactions done by the logical replication worker (from
+          when <literal>two_phase</literal> parameter was still
<literal>true</literal>).
+          If <literal>force_alter</literal> is <literal>false</literal>, then
+          this will give an error; if <literal>force_alter</literal> is
+          <literal>true</literal>, then the incomplete prepared transactions
+          are aborted and the alter will proceed.
+          The default is <literal>false</literal>.
+         </para>
+        </listitem>
+       </varlistentry>

IMO this will be better broken into multiple paragraphs.

1. Specifies...
2. There is...
3. The default is...

======
src/test/subscription/t/099_twophase_added.pl

(Let's change all the on|off to true|false like you already did in patch 0002.

4.3.
+# Try altering the two_phase option to "off." The command will fail since there
+# is a prepared transaction and the 'force_alter' option is not specified as
+# true.
+my $stdout;
+my $stderr;

/off./false/

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tatsuo Ishii
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: CFbot does not recognize patch contents
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol