From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Date: | 2025-07-01 09:07:08 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tpw5a6wCr7QCNwBLKPCqKLwntwjguVsrgxJrcBTuQzJg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 2:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 10:53 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 10:31 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I was looking at 0001, it mostly looks fine to me except this one
> > > case. So here we need to ensure that commits must be acquired after
> > > marking the flag, don't you think we need to ensure strict statement
> > > ordering using memory barrier, or we think it's not required and if so
> > > why?
> > >
>
> Good point. I also think we need a barrier here, but a write barrier
> should be sufficient as we want ordering of two store operations.
+1
> > > RecordTransactionCommitPrepared()
> > > {
> > > ..
> > > + MyProc->delayChkptFlags |= DELAY_CHKPT_IN_COMMIT;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Note it is important to set committs value after marking ourselves as
> > > + * in the commit critical section (DELAY_CHKPT_IN_COMMIT). This is because
> > > + * we want to ensure all transactions that have acquired commit timestamp
> > > + * are finished before we allow the logical replication client to advance
> > > + * its xid which is used to hold back dead rows for conflict detection.
> > > + * See maybe_advance_nonremovable_xid.
> > > + */
> > > + committs = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> > > }
> >
> > I'm unsure whether the function call inherently acts as a memory
> > barrier, preventing the compiler from reordering these operations.
> > This needs to be confirmed.
> >
>
> As per my understanding, function calls won't be a memory barrier. In
> this regard, we need a similar change in RecordTransactionCommit as
> well.
Right, we need this in RecordTransactionCommit() as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-07-01 09:25:01 | Re: mention unused_oids script in pg_proc.dat |
Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2025-07-01 09:04:46 | Re: NUMA shared memory interleaving |