"in_streaming" is a flag used to track if an instance of pgoutput is
streaming changes. When pgoutput is started, the flag was always reset,
switched it back and forth in the stream start/stop callbacks.
Before this commit, it was a global variable, which is confusing as it
is actually attached to a state of PGOutputData. Per my analysis, using
a global variable did not lead to an active bug like in 54ccfd6586,
but it makes the code more consistent. Note that we cannot backpatch
this change anyway as it requires the addition of a new field to
PGOutputData, exposed in pgoutput.h.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Michael Paquier, Peter Smith
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB571690EF24F51F51EFFCBB0E94FAA@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
The pgoutput module uses a global variable (publish_no_origin) to cache
the action for the origin filter, but we didn't reset the flag when
shutting down the output plugin, so subsequent retries may access the
previous publish_no_origin value.
We fix this by storing the flag in the output plugin's private data.
Additionally, the patch removes the currently unused origin string from the
structure.
For the back branch, to avoid changing the exposed structure, we eliminated the
global variable and instead directly used the origin string for change
filtering.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Michael Paquier
Backpatch-through: 16
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB571690EF24F51F51EFFCBB0E94FAA@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Currently, for large transactions, the publisher sends the data in
multiple streams (changes divided into chunks depending upon
logical_decoding_work_mem), and then on the subscriber-side, the apply
worker writes the changes into temporary files and once it receives the
commit, it reads from those files and applies the entire transaction. To
improve the performance of such transactions, we can instead allow them to
be applied via parallel workers.
In this approach, we assign a new parallel apply worker (if available) as
soon as the xact's first stream is received and the leader apply worker
will send changes to this new worker via shared memory. The parallel apply
worker will directly apply the change instead of writing it to temporary
files. However, if the leader apply worker times out while attempting to
send a message to the parallel apply worker, it will switch to
"partial serialize" mode - in this mode, the leader serializes all
remaining changes to a file and notifies the parallel apply workers to
read and apply them at the end of the transaction. We use a non-blocking
way to send the messages from the leader apply worker to the parallel
apply to avoid deadlocks. We keep this parallel apply assigned till the
transaction commit is received and also wait for the worker to finish at
commit. This preserves commit ordering and avoid writing to and reading
from files in most cases. We still need to spill if there is no worker
available.
This patch also extends the SUBSCRIPTION 'streaming' parameter so that the
user can control whether to apply the streaming transaction in a parallel
apply worker or spill the change to disk. The user can set the streaming
parameter to 'on/off', or 'parallel'. The parameter value 'parallel' means
the streaming will be applied via a parallel apply worker, if available.
The parameter value 'on' means the streaming transaction will be spilled
to disk. The default value is 'off' (same as current behaviour).
In addition, the patch extends the logical replication STREAM_ABORT
message so that abort_lsn and abort_time can also be sent which can be
used to update the replication origin in parallel apply worker when the
streaming transaction is aborted. Because this message extension is needed
to support parallel streaming, parallel streaming is not supported for
publications on servers < PG16.
Author: Hou Zhijie, Wang wei, Amit Kapila with design inputs from Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Sawada Masahiko, Peter Smith, Dilip Kumar, Shi yu, Kuroda Hayato, Shveta Mallik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+wyN6zpaHUkCLorEWNx75MG0xhMwcFhvjqm2KURZEAGw@mail.gmail.com
This patch adds a new SUBSCRIPTION parameter "origin". It specifies
whether the subscription will request the publisher to only send changes
that don't have an origin or send changes regardless of origin. Setting it
to "none" means that the subscription will request the publisher to only
send changes that have no origin associated. Setting it to "any" means
that the publisher sends changes regardless of their origin. The default
is "any".
Usage:
CREATE SUBSCRIPTION sub1 CONNECTION 'dbname=postgres port=9999'
PUBLICATION pub1 WITH (origin = none);
This can be used to avoid loops (infinite replication of the same data)
among replication nodes.
This feature allows filtering only the replication data originating from
WAL but for initial sync (initial copy of table data) we don't have such a
facility as we can only distinguish the data based on origin from WAL. As
a follow-up patch, we are planning to forbid the initial sync if the
origin is specified as none and we notice that the publication tables were
also replicated from other publishers to avoid duplicate data or loops.
We forbid to allow creating origin with names 'none' and 'any' to avoid
confusion with the same name options.
Author: Vignesh C, Amit Kapila
Reviewed-By: Peter Smith, Amit Kapila, Dilip Kumar, Shi yu, Ashutosh Bapat, Hayato Kuroda
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm0gwjY_4HFxvvty01BOT01q_fJLKQ3pWP9=9orqubhjcQ@mail.gmail.com
This commit adds support for decoding of sequences to the built-in
replication (the infrastructure was added by commit 0da92dc530).
The syntax and behavior mostly mimics handling of tables, i.e. a
publication may be defined as FOR ALL SEQUENCES (replicating all
sequences in a database), FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA (replicating
all sequences in a particular schema) or individual sequences.
To publish sequence modifications, the publication has to include
'sequence' action. The protocol is extended with a new message,
describing sequence increments.
A new system view pg_publication_sequences lists all the sequences
added to a publication, both directly and indirectly. Various psql
commands (\d and \dRp) are improved to also display publications
including a given sequence, or sequences included in a publication.
Author: Tomas Vondra, Cary Huang
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut, Amit Kapila, Hannu Krosing, Andres
Freund, Petr Jelinek
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d045f3c2-6cfb-06d3-5540-e63c320df8bc@enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1710ed7e13b.cd7177461430746.3372264562543607781@highgo.ca
This feature adds row filtering for publication tables. When a publication
is defined or modified, an optional WHERE clause can be specified. Rows
that don't satisfy this WHERE clause will be filtered out. This allows a
set of tables to be partially replicated. The row filter is per table. A
new row filter can be added simply by specifying a WHERE clause after the
table name. The WHERE clause must be enclosed by parentheses.
The row filter WHERE clause for a table added to a publication that
publishes UPDATE and/or DELETE operations must contain only columns that
are covered by REPLICA IDENTITY. The row filter WHERE clause for a table
added to a publication that publishes INSERT can use any column. If the
row filter evaluates to NULL, it is regarded as "false". The WHERE clause
only allows simple expressions that don't have user-defined functions,
user-defined operators, user-defined types, user-defined collations,
non-immutable built-in functions, or references to system columns. These
restrictions could be addressed in the future.
If you choose to do the initial table synchronization, only data that
satisfies the row filters is copied to the subscriber. If the subscription
has several publications in which a table has been published with
different WHERE clauses, rows that satisfy ANY of the expressions will be
copied. If a subscriber is a pre-15 version, the initial table
synchronization won't use row filters even if they are defined in the
publisher.
The row filters are applied before publishing the changes. If the
subscription has several publications in which the same table has been
published with different filters (for the same publish operation), those
expressions get OR'ed together so that rows satisfying any of the
expressions will be replicated.
This means all the other filters become redundant if (a) one of the
publications have no filter at all, (b) one of the publications was
created using FOR ALL TABLES, (c) one of the publications was created
using FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA and the table belongs to that same schema.
If your publication contains a partitioned table, the publication
parameter publish_via_partition_root determines if it uses the partition's
row filter (if the parameter is false, the default) or the root
partitioned table's row filter.
Psql commands \dRp+ and \d <table-name> will display any row filters.
Author: Hou Zhijie, Euler Taveira, Peter Smith, Ajin Cherian
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Haiying Tang, Amit Kapila, Tomas Vondra, Dilip Kumar, Vignesh C, Alvaro Herrera, Andres Freund, Wei Wang
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHE3wggb715X%2BmK_DitLXF25B%3DjE6xyNCH4YOwM860JR7HarGQ%40mail.gmail.com
This fixes a set of issues that have accumulated over the past months
(or years) in various code areas. Most fixes are related to some recent
additions, as of the development of v15.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220124030001.GQ23027@telsasoft.com
To add support for streaming transactions at prepare time into the
built-in logical replication, we need to do the following things:
* Modify the output plugin (pgoutput) to implement the new two-phase API
callbacks, by leveraging the extended replication protocol.
* Modify the replication apply worker, to properly handle two-phase
transactions by replaying them on prepare.
* Add a new SUBSCRIPTION option "two_phase" to allow users to enable
two-phase transactions. We enable the two_phase once the initial data sync
is over.
We however must explicitly disable replication of two-phase transactions
during replication slot creation, even if the plugin supports it. We
don't need to replicate the changes accumulated during this phase,
and moreover, we don't have a replication connection open so we don't know
where to send the data anyway.
The streaming option is not allowed with this new two_phase option. This
can be done as a separate patch.
We don't allow to toggle two_phase option of a subscription because it can
lead to an inconsistent replica. For the same reason, we don't allow to
refresh the publication once the two_phase is enabled for a subscription
unless copy_data option is false.
Author: Peter Smith, Ajin Cherian and Amit Kapila based on previous work by Nikhil Sontakke and Stas Kelvich
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Sawada Masahiko, Vignesh C, Dilip Kumar, Takamichi Osumi, Greg Nancarrow
Tested-By: Haiying Tang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/02DA5F5E-CECE-4D9C-8B4B-418077E2C010@postgrespro.ru
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+opiV4aFTmWWUF9h_32=HfPOW9vZASHarT0UA5oBrtGw@mail.gmail.com
The output plugin accepts a new parameter (messages) that controls if
logical decoding messages are written into the replication stream. It is
useful for those clients that use pgoutput as an output plugin and needs
to process messages that were written by pg_logical_emit_message().
Although logical streaming replication protocol supports logical
decoding messages now, logical replication does not use this feature yet.
Author: David Pirotte, Euler Taveira
Reviewed-by: Euler Taveira, Andres Freund, Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADK3HHJ-+9SO7KuRLH=9Wa1rAo60Yreq1GFNkH_kd0=CdaWM+A@mail.gmail.com
Instead of using multiple parameters in parse_ouput_parameters function
signature, use the struct PGOutputData that encapsulates all pgoutput
options. It will be useful for future work where we need to add other
options in pgoutput.
Author: Euler Taveira
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADK3HHJ-+9SO7KuRLH=9Wa1rAo60Yreq1GFNkH_kd0=CdaWM+A@mail.gmail.com
This patch adds a "binary" option to CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.
When that's set, the publisher will send data using the data type's
typsend function if any, rather than typoutput. This is generally
faster, if slightly less robust.
As committed, we won't try to transfer user-defined array or composite
types in binary, for fear that type OIDs won't match at the subscriber.
This might be changed later, but it seems like fit material for a
follow-on patch.
Dave Cramer, reviewed by Daniel Gustafsson, Petr Jelinek, and others;
adjusted some by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADK3HH+R3xMn=8t3Ct+uD+qJ1KD=Hbif5NFMJ+d5DkoCzp6Vgw@mail.gmail.com
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
