On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:58 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:43 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me that we need to add all of this new handling because > > > > while taking the decision whether to stream or not we don't know > > > > whether the txn has changes that can't be streamed. One idea to make > > > > it work is that we identify it while decoding the WAL. I think we > > > > need to set a bit in the insert/delete WAL record to identify if the > > > > tuple belongs to a toast relation. This won't add any additional > > > > overhead in WAL and reduce a lot of complexity in the logical decoding > > > > and also decoding will be efficient. If this is feasible, then we can > > > > do the same for speculative insertions. > > > The Idea looks good to me. I will work on this. > > > > > > > One more thing we can do is to identify whether the tuple belongs to > > toast relation while decoding it. However, I think to do that we need > > to have access to relcache at that time and that might add some > > overhead as we need to do that for each tuple. Can we investigate > > what it will take to do that and if it is better than setting a bit > > during WAL logging. > > IMHO, for the catalog scan, we will have to start/stop the transaction > for each change. So do you want that we should evaluate its > performance? >
No, I was not thinking about each change, but at the level of ReorderBufferTXN. > Also, during we get the change we might not have the > complete historic snapshot ready to fetch the rel cache entry. > Before decoding each change (say DecodeInsert), we call SnapBuildProcessChange. Isn't that sufficient? Even, if the above is possible, I am not sure how good is it for each change we fetch rel cache entry, that is the point I was worried. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
