|From:||Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2017-12-23 21:06, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 12/23/2017 03:03 PM, Erikjan Rijkers wrote:
>> On 2017-12-23 05:57, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Attached is a patch series that implements two features to the
>>> replication - ability to define a memory limit for the reorderbuffer
>>> (responsible for building the decoded transactions), and ability to
>>> stream large in-progress transactions (exceeding the memory limit).
>> logical replication of 2 instances is OK but 3 and up fail with:
>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(last_lsn < change->lsn)", File:
>> "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 1773)
>> I can cobble up a script but I hope you have enough from the assertion
>> to see what's going wrong...
> The assertion says that the iterator produces changes in order that
> not correlate with LSN. But I have a hard time understanding how that
> could happen, particularly because according to the line number this
> happens in ReorderBufferCommit(), i.e. the current (non-streaming)
> So instructions to reproduce the issue would be very helpful.
As you expected the problem is the same with these new patches.
I have now tested more, and seen that it not always fails. I guess that
it here fails 3 times out of 4. But the laptop I'm using at the moment
is old and slow -- it may well be a factor as we've seen before .
Attached is the bash that I put together. I tested with
NUM_INSTANCES=2, which yields success, and NUM_INSTANCES=3, which fails
often. This same program run with HEAD never seems to fail (I tried a
few dozen times).
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2017-12-23 22:42:45||Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2017-12-23 21:53:55||parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL|