On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:13 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> After the latest change in undo interface patch[1], this patch need to
>> be rebased. Attaching the rebased version of the patch.
>>
>> [1]https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-tfquvm6tnWFaJNYYz-vSY%3D%2BSQTMv%2BFv1jPozTrW4mtKw%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>
> I have rebased this patch on top of latest version of undolog and
> undo-interface patch set [1]
>
I have started reviewing your patch and below are some initial
comments. To be clear to everyone, there is some part of this patch
for which I have also written code and I am also involved in the
high-level design of this work, but I have never done the detailed
review of this patch which I am planning to do now. I think it will
be really good if some other hackers also review this patch especially
the interaction with transaction machinery and how the error rollbacks
work. I have few comments below in that regard as well and I have
requested to add more comments to explain that part of the patch so
that it will be easier to understand how this works.
Few comments:
------------------------
1.
+void
+undoaction_desc(StringInfo buf, XLogReaderState *record)
+{
+ char *rec = XLogRecGetData(record);
+ uint8 info = XLogRecGetInfo(record) & ~XLR_INFO_MASK;
+
+ if (info == XLOG_UNDO_PAGE)
+ {
+ uint8 *flags = (uint8 *) rec;
+
+ appendStringInfo(buf, "page_contains_tpd_slot: %c ",
+ (*flags & XLU_PAGE_CONTAINS_TPD_SLOT) ? 'T' : 'F');
+ appendStringInfo(buf, "is_page_initialized: %c ",
+ (*flags & XLU_INIT_PAGE) ? 'T' : 'F');
+ if (*flags & XLU_PAGE_CONTAINS_TPD_SLOT)
Do we need handling of TPD in this patch? This is mainly tied to
zheap, so, I think we can exclude it from this patch.
2.
const char *
+undoaction_identify(uint8 info)
+{
+ const char *id = NULL;
+
+ switch (info & ~XLR_INFO_MASK)
+ {
+ case XLOG_UNDO_APPLY_PROGRESS:
+ id = "UNDO APPLY PROGRESS";
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return id;
+}
Don't we need to handle the case of XLOG_UNDO_PAGE in this function?
3.
@@ -1489,6 +1504,34 @@ FinishPreparedTransaction(const char *gid, bool isCommit)
{
..
+ /*
+ * Perform undo actions, if there are undologs for this transaction.
+ * We need to perform undo actions while we are still in transaction.
+ * Never push rollbacks of temp tables to undo worker.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < UndoPersistenceLevels; i++)
+ {
+ if (end_urec_ptr[i] != InvalidUndoRecPtr && !isCommit)
+ {
+ bool result = false;
+ uint64 rollback_size = 0;
+
+ if (i != UNDO_TEMP)
+ rollback_size = end_urec_ptr[i] - start_urec_ptr[i];
+
+ if (rollback_size >= rollback_overflow_size * 1024 * 1024)
+ result = PushRollbackReq(end_urec_ptr[i], start_urec_ptr[i], InvalidOid);
The comment and code don't seem to be completely in sync. It seems
for rollback_overflow_size as 0, we will push the undo for temp tables
as well. I think you should have a stronger check here.
4.
+ /*
+ * We need the locations of start and end undo record pointers when rollbacks
+ * are to be performed for prepared transactions using zheap relations.
+ */
+ UndoRecPtr start_urec_ptr[UndoPersistenceLevels];
+ UndoRecPtr end_urec_ptr[UndoPersistenceLevels];
} TwoPhaseFileHeader;
I think you can expand this comment a bit by telling the reason why
you need to store these in the file. It seems it is because you want
to rollback prepared transactions after recovery.
5.
@@ -284,10 +284,21 @@ SetTransactionIdLimit(TransactionId
oldest_datfrozenxid, Oid oldest_datoid)
TransactionId xidStopLimit;
TransactionId xidWrapLimit;
TransactionId curXid;
+ TransactionId oldestXidHavingUndo;
Assert(TransactionIdIsNormal(oldest_datfrozenxid));
/*
+ * To determine the last safe xid that can be allocated, we need to
+ * consider oldestXidHavingUndo. The oldestXidHavingUndo will be only
+ * valid for zheap storage engine, so it won't impact any other storage
+ * engine.
+ */
+ oldestXidHavingUndo = pg_atomic_read_u32(&ProcGlobal->oldestXidHavingUndo);
+ if (TransactionIdIsValid(oldestXidHavingUndo))
+ oldest_datfrozenxid = Min(oldest_datfrozenxid, oldestXidHavingUndo);
+
Here, I think we need to mention the reason as well in the comments
why we need to care about oldestXidHavingUndo.
6.
+/* Location in undo log from where to start applying the undo actions. */
+static UndoRecPtr UndoActionStartPtr[UndoPersistenceLevels] =
+
{InvalidUndoRecPtr,
+
InvalidUndoRecPtr,
+
InvalidUndoRecPtr};
+
+/* Location in undo log up to which undo actions need to be applied. */
+static UndoRecPtr UndoActionEndPtr[UndoPersistenceLevels] =
+
{InvalidUndoRecPtr,
+
InvalidUndoRecPtr,
+
InvalidUndoRecPtr};
+
+/* Do we need to perform any undo actions? */
+static bool PerformUndoActions = false;
Normally, we track to and from undo locations for each transaction
state. I think these are used for error rollbacks which have
different handling. If so, can we write a few comments here to
explain how that works and then it will be easier to understand the
purpose of these variables?
7.
+static void
+AtAbort_Rollback(void)
{
..
+ /*
+ * If we are in a valid transaction state then execute the undo action here
+ * itself, otherwise we have already stored the required information for
+ * executing the undo action later.
+ */
+ if (CurrentTransactionState->state == TRANS_INPROGRESS)
..
}
As such this code is okay, but it is better to use IsTransactionState
as that is what we commonly used throughout the code for the same
purpose. The same change is required in AtSubAbort_Rollback.
8.
+static void
+AtAbort_Rollback(void)
{
..
+ /*
+ * Remember the required information for performing undo actions. So that
+ * if there is any failure in executing the undo action we can execute
+ * it later.
+ */
+ memcpy (UndoActionStartPtr, latest_urec_ptr, sizeof(UndoActionStartPtr));
+ memcpy (UndoActionEndPtr, s->start_urec_ptr, sizeof(UndoActionEndPtr));
+
+ /*
+ * If we are in a valid transaction state then execute the undo action here
+ * itself, otherwise we have already stored the required information for
+ * executing the undo action later.
+ */
+ if (CurrentTransactionState->state == TRANS_INPROGRESS)
..
}
It is not clear from above commentary and code how the rollbacks will
work if we get the error while executing undo actions. Basically, how
will PerformUndoActions will be set in such a case? I think you are
going to set it during AbortCurrentTransaction, but if that is the
case, can't we set the values of UndoActionStartPtr and
UndoActionEndPtr at that time? IIUC, these two variables are used
mainly when we want to postpone executing undo actions when we are not
in a good transaction state (like during error rollbacks) and
PerformUndoActions will indicate whether there are any pending
actions, so I feel these three variables should be set together. If
that is not the case, I think we need to add more comments to explain
the same.
9.
@@ -2594,6 +2676,7 @@ AbortTransaction(void)
..
/*
* set the current transaction state information appropriately during the
* abort processing
*/
s->state = TRANS_ABORT;
*/
AfterTriggerEndXact(false); /* 'false' means it's abort */
AtAbort_Portals();
+ AtAbort_Rollback();
..
+AtAbort_Rollback(void)
{
..
+ /*
+ * If we are in a valid transaction state then execute the undo action here
+ * itself, otherwise we have already stored the required information for
+ * executing the undo action later.
+ */
+ if (CurrentTransactionState->state == TRANS_INPROGRESS)
The function AtAbort_Rollback is called only from one place
AbortTransaction in the patch and by that time we have already set the
transaction state as TRANS_ABORT, so it is never going to get the
chance to execute the undo actions. How will it work when the user has
specifically given Rollback and we want to execute the undo actions?
Why can't we do this in UserAbortTransactionBlock? There is a comment
indicating the correctness of this method "/* XXX: TODO: check this
logic, which was moved out of UserAbortTransactionBlock */", but it is
not very clear why we need to do this in abort path only.
10.
@@ -4811,6 +5243,7 @@ AbortSubTransaction(void)
s->parent->subTransactionId,
s->curTransactionOwner,
s->parent->curTransactionOwner);
+ AtSubAbort_Rollback(s);
I see a similar problem as mentioned in point-9 in
AtSubAbort_Rollback. I think there is one problem here which is that
if executing the undo actions are postponed during Rollback To
Savepoint, then we would have released the locks and some other
backend which was supposed to wait on subtransaction will not wait and
might update the tuple or in some cases need to perform actions. I
understand this is more of a zheap specific stuff, but I feel in
general also we should execute undo actions of Rollback To Savepoint
immediately; if not, you might also need to invent some mechanism to
transfer (to and from) undo record pointers from the sub-transaction
state.
11.
@@ -2803,6 +2886,12 @@ void
CommitTransactionCommand(void)
{
..
+
+ /*
+ * Update the end undo record pointer if it's not valid with
+ * the currently popped transaction's end undo record pointer.
+ * This is particularly required when the first command of
+ * the transaction is of type which does not require an undo,
+ * e.g. savepoint x.
+ * Accordingly, update the start undo record pointer.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < UndoPersistenceLevels; i++)
+ {
+ if (!UndoRecPtrIsValid(end_urec_ptr[i]))
+ end_urec_ptr[i] = s->latest_urec_ptr[i];
+
+ if (UndoRecPtrIsValid(s->start_urec_ptr[i]))
+ start_urec_ptr[i] = s->start_urec_ptr[i];
+ }
..
}
I am not able to understand the above piece of code. Basically, you
have written in comments that this is required when the first command
in a transaction is of the type which doesn't generate undo, but there
is no explanation why it is required for that case. Also, the comment
and code don't seem to match because of below points:
(a) The comment says "Update the end undo record pointer if it's not
valid with the currently popped transaction's end undo record
pointer." and the code is not checking current transactions end
pointer validity, so it is not clear to me what you want to say here.
(b) The comment says "Accordingly, update the start undo record
pointer.". However from start undo record pointer, you are checking
the current state's start pointer which is different from what you do
for end pointer.
(c) How will the saved start_urec_ptr and end_urec_ptr be used after this?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
