Logical decoding of sequences

This extends the logical decoding to also decode sequence increments.
We differentiate between sequences created in the current (in-progress)
transaction, and sequences created earlier. This mixed behavior is
necessary because while sequences are not transactional (increments are
not subject to ROLLBACK), relfilenode changes are. So we do this:

* Changes for sequences created in the same top-level transaction are
  treated as transactional, i.e. just like any other change from that
  transaction, and discarded in case of a rollback.

* Changes for sequences created earlier are applied immediately, as if
  performed outside any transaction. This applies also after ALTER
  SEQUENCE, which may create a new relfilenode.

Moreover, if we ever get support for DDL replication, the sequence
won't exist until the transaction gets applied.

Sequences created in the current transaction are tracked in a simple
hash table, identified by a relfilenode. That means a sequence may
already exist, but if a transaction does ALTER SEQUENCE then the
increments for the new relfilenode will be treated as transactional.

For each relfilenode we track the XID of (sub)transaction that created
it, which is needed for cleanup at transaction end. We don't need to
check the XID to decide if an increment is transactional - if we find a
match in the hash table, it has to be the same transaction.

This requires two minor changes to WAL-logging. Firstly, we need to
ensure the sequence record has a valid XID - until now the the increment
might have XID 0 if it was the first change in a subxact. But the
sequence might have been created in the same top-level transaction. So
we ensure the XID is assigned when WAL-logging increments.

The other change is addition of "created" flag, marking increments for
newly created relfilenodes. This makes it easier to maintain the hash
table of sequences that need transactional handling.
Note: This is needed because of subxacts. A XID 0 might still have the
sequence created in a different subxact of the same top-level xact.

This does not include any changes to test_decoding and/or the built-in
replication - those will be committed in separate patches.

A patch adding decoding of sequences was originally submitted by Cary
Huang. This commit reworks various important aspects (e.g. the WAL
logging and transactional/non-transactional handling). However, the
original patch and reviews were very useful.

Author: Tomas Vondra, Cary Huang
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut, Hannu Krosing, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d045f3c2-6cfb-06d3-5540-e63c320df8bc@enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1710ed7e13b.cd7177461430746.3372264562543607781@highgo.ca

src/backend/commands/sequence.c

@@ -378,8 +378,13 @@ fill_seq_with_data(Relation rel, HeapTuple tuple)
 
 	/* check the comment above nextval_internal()'s equivalent call. */
 	if (RelationNeedsWAL(rel))
+	{
 		GetTopTransactionId();
 
+		if (XLogLogicalInfoActive())
+			GetCurrentTransactionId();
+	}
+
 	START_CRIT_SECTION();
 
 	MarkBufferDirty(buf);
@@ -399,6 +404,7 @@ fill_seq_with_data(Relation rel, HeapTuple tuple)
 		XLogRegisterBuffer(0, buf, REGBUF_WILL_INIT);
 
 		xlrec.node = rel->rd_node;
+		xlrec.created = true;
 
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) &xlrec, sizeof(xl_seq_rec));
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) tuple->t_data, tuple->t_len);
@@ -764,10 +770,28 @@ nextval_internal(Oid relid, bool check_permissions)
 	 * It's sufficient to ensure the toplevel transaction has an xid, no need
 	 * to assign xids subxacts, that'll already trigger an appropriate wait.
 	 * (Have to do that here, so we're outside the critical section)
+	 *
+	 * We have to ensure we have a proper XID, which will be included in
+	 * the XLOG record by XLogRecordAssemble. Otherwise the first nextval()
+	 * in a subxact (without any preceding changes) would get XID 0, and it
+	 * would then be impossible to decide which top xact it belongs to.
+	 * It'd also trigger assert in DecodeSequence. We only do that with
+	 * wal_level=logical, though.
+	 *
+	 * XXX This might seem unnecessary, because if there's no XID the xact
+	 * couldn't have done anything important yet, e.g. it could not have
+	 * created a sequence. But that's incorrect, because of subxacts. The
+	 * current subtransaction might not have done anything yet (thus no XID),
+	 * but an earlier one might have created the sequence.
 	 */
 	if (logit && RelationNeedsWAL(seqrel))
+	{
 		GetTopTransactionId();
 
+		if (XLogLogicalInfoActive())
+			GetCurrentTransactionId();
+	}
+
 	/* ready to change the on-disk (or really, in-buffer) tuple */
 	START_CRIT_SECTION();
 
@@ -803,6 +827,7 @@ nextval_internal(Oid relid, bool check_permissions)
 		seq->log_cnt = 0;
 
 		xlrec.node = seqrel->rd_node;
+		xlrec.created = false;
 
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) &xlrec, sizeof(xl_seq_rec));
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) seqdatatuple.t_data, seqdatatuple.t_len);
@@ -977,8 +1002,13 @@ do_setval(Oid relid, int64 next, bool iscalled)
 
 	/* check the comment above nextval_internal()'s equivalent call. */
 	if (RelationNeedsWAL(seqrel))
+	{
 		GetTopTransactionId();
 
+		if (XLogLogicalInfoActive())
+			GetCurrentTransactionId();
+	}
+
 	/* ready to change the on-disk (or really, in-buffer) tuple */
 	START_CRIT_SECTION();
 
@@ -999,6 +1029,8 @@ do_setval(Oid relid, int64 next, bool iscalled)
 		XLogRegisterBuffer(0, buf, REGBUF_WILL_INIT);
 
 		xlrec.node = seqrel->rd_node;
+		xlrec.created = false;
+
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) &xlrec, sizeof(xl_seq_rec));
 		XLogRegisterData((char *) seqdatatuple.t_data, seqdatatuple.t_len);