RE: Logical Replica ReorderBuffer Size Accounting Issues - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 21:02 PM Alex Richman <alexrichman@onesignal.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 10:44, wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > I think parallelism doesn't affect this problem. Because for a walsender, I
> > think it will always read the wal serially in order. Please let me know if I'm
> > missing something.
> I suspect it's more about getting enough changes into the WAL quickly enough
> for walsender to not spend any time idle.  I suppose you could stack the deck
> towards this by first disabling the subscription, doing the updates to spool a
> bunch of changes in the WAL, then enabling the subscription again.  Perhaps
> there is also some impact in the WAL records interleaving from the concurrent
> updates and making more work for the reorder buffer.
> The servers I am testing on are quite beefy, so it might be a little harder to
> generate sufficient load if you're testing locally on a laptop or something.
> 
> > And I tried to use the table structure and UPDATE statement you said. But
> > unfortunately I didn't catch 1GB or unexpected (I mean a lot size beyond
> 256MB)
> > usage in rb->tup_context. Could you please help me to confirm my test? Here
> is
> > my test details:
> Here's test scripts that replicate it for me: [1]
> This is on 15.1, installed on debian-11, running on GCP n2-highmem-80 (IceLake)
> /w 24x Local SSD in raid0.

Thanks for the details you shared.

Yes, I think you are right. I think I reproduced this problem as you suggested
(Update the entire table in parallel). And I can reproduce this problem on both
current HEAD and REL_15_1. The memory used in rb->tup_context can reach 350M
in HEAD and reach 600MB in REL_15_1.

Here are my steps to reproduce:
1. Apply the attached diff patch to add some logs for confirmation.
2. Use the attached reproduction script to reproduce the problem.
3. Confirm the debug log that is output to the log file pub.log.

After doing some research, I agree with the idea you mentioned before. I think
this problem is caused by the implementation of 'Generational allocator' or the
way we uses the API of 'Generational allocator'.

Here is my analysis:
When we try to free the memory used in rb->tup_context in the function
GenerationFree(), I think it is because of this if-condition [1] that the
memory is not actually freed. So IIUC, in the function
ReorderBufferReturnChange, rb->size will be reduced in the function
ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate, while the memory used in rb->tup_context may
not be freed in the function ReorderBufferReturnTupleBuf. I think this is why
the two counters don't match.

BTW, after debugging, I think that compared to updating the entire table
serially, if the entire table is updated in parallel, the frequency of meeting
this condition will increase a lot. So I think this is why updating the tables
in parallel is easier to reproduce this problem.

But there's one more thing I'm not sure about. You mentioned in [2] that
pg_stat_replication_slots shows 0 spilled or streamed bytes for any slots. I
think this may be due to the timing of viewing pg_stat_replication_slots. In
the function ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit , after invoking the function
ReorderBufferSerializeTXN, even without actually freeing any used memory in
rb->tup_context, I could see spilled-related record in
pg_stat_replication_slots. Could you please help to confirm this point if
possible?

Regards,
Wang Wei

[1] -
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/c5dc80c1bc216f0e21a2f79f5e0415c2d4cfb35d/src/backend/utils/mmgr/generation.c#L702
[2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMnUB3oYugXCBLSkih%2BqNsWQPciEwos6g_AMbnz_peNoxfHwyw%40mail.gmail.com