2 Commits (f3ed72ca0765bdd726a31b7fa20219e96baf312c)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Masahiko Sawada	d87d07b7ad	Fix re-distributing previously distributed invalidation messages during logical decoding. ... Commit 4909b38af0 introduced logic to distribute invalidation messages from catalog-modifying transactions to all concurrent in-progress transactions. However, since each transaction distributes not only its original invalidation messages but also previously distributed messages to other transactions, this leads to an exponential increase in allocation request size for invalidation messages, ultimately causing memory allocation failure. This commit fixes this issue by tracking distributed invalidation messages separately per decoded transaction and not redistributing these messages to other in-progress transactions. The maximum size of distributed invalidation messages that one transaction can store is limited to MAX_DISTR_INVAL_MSG_PER_TXN (8MB). Once the size of the distributed invalidation messages exceeds this threshold, we invalidate all caches in locations where distributed invalidation messages need to be executed. Back-patch to all supported versions where we introduced the fix by commit 4909b38af0. Note that this commit adds two new fields to ReorderBufferTXN to store the distributed transactions. This change breaks ABI compatibility in back branches, affecting third-party extensions that depend on the size of the ReorderBufferTXN struct, though this scenario seems unlikely. Additionally, it adds a new flag to the txn_flags field of ReorderBufferTXN to indicate distributed invalidation message overflow. This should not affect existing implementations, as it is unlikely that third-party extensions use unused bits in the txn_flags field. Bug: #18938 #18942 Author: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> Reported-by: Duncan Sands <duncan.sands@deepbluecap.com> Reported-by: John Hutchins <john.hutchins@wicourts.gov> Reported-by: Laurence Parry <greenreaper@hotmail.com> Reported-by: Max Madden <maxmmadden@gmail.com> Reported-by: Braulio Fdo Gonzalez <brauliofg@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Hayato Kuroda <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/680bdaf6-f7d1-4536-b580-05c2760c67c6@deepbluecap.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18942-0ab1e5ae156613ad@postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18938-57c9a1c463b68ce0@postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD1FGCT2sYrP_70RTuo56QTizyc+J3wJdtn2gtO3VttQFpdMZg@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANO2=B=2BT1hSYCE=nuuTnVTnjidMg0+-FfnRnqM6kd23qoygg@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 13	6 months ago
Amit Kapila	50b8ad30f7	Fix typo in test file name added in commit 4909b38af0. ... Author: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> Backpatch-through: 13 Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANhcyEXsObdjkjxEnq10aJumDpa5J6aiPzgTh_w4KCWRYHLw6Q@mail.gmail.com	8 months ago
Amit Kapila	4909b38af0	Fix data loss in logical replication. ... Data loss can happen when the DDLs like ALTER PUBLICATION ... ADD TABLE ... or ALTER TYPE ... that don't take a strong lock on table happens concurrently to DMLs on the tables involved in the DDL. This happens because logical decoding doesn't distribute invalidations to concurrent transactions and those transactions use stale cache data to decode the changes. The problem becomes bigger because we keep using the stale cache even after those in-progress transactions are finished and skip the changes required to be sent to the client. This commit fixes the issue by distributing invalidation messages from catalog-modifying transactions to all concurrent in-progress transactions. This allows the necessary rebuild of the catalog cache when decoding new changes after concurrent DDL. We observed performance regression primarily during frequent execution of *publication DDL* statements that modify the published tables. The regression is minor or nearly nonexistent for DDLs that do not affect the published tables or occur infrequently, making this a worthwhile cost to resolve a longstanding data loss issue. An alternative approach considered was to take a strong lock on each affected table during publication modification. However, this would only address issues related to publication DDLs (but not the ALTER TYPE ...) and require locking every relation in the database for publications created as FOR ALL TABLES, which is impractical. The bug exists in all supported branches, but we are backpatching till 14. The fix for 13 requires somewhat bigger changes than this fix, so the fix for that branch is still under discussion. Reported-by: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> Reported-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> Author: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> Author: Hayato Kuroda <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Zhijie Hou <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> Tested-by: Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com> Backpatch-through: 14 Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/de52b282-1166-1180-45a2-8d8917ca74c6@enterprisedb.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoAenVqiMjpN-PvGHL1N9DWnHSq673bfgr6phmBUzx=kLQ@mail.gmail.com	8 months ago