RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for the comments! I also agree that the barrier is needed.

Here is V45 patch set.

I modified 0001, added write barriers, and improved some comments.

Best Regards,
Hou zj