On Saturday, November 5, 2022 1:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 7:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 4:07 PM Amit Kapila > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:36 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the analysis and summary ! > > > > > > > > I tried to implement the above idea and here is the patch set. > > > > > > > > > > Few comments on v42-0001 > > > =========================== > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > 10. > > > + winfo->shared->stream_lock_id = parallel_apply_get_unique_id(); > > > + winfo->shared->transaction_lock_id = > > > + winfo->shared->parallel_apply_get_unique_id(); > > > > > > Why can't we use xid (remote_xid) for one of these and local_xid > > > (one generated by parallel apply) for the other? > ... > ... > > > > I also considered using xid for these locks, but it seems the objsubid > > for the shared object lock is 16bit while xid is 32 bit. So, I tried > > to generate a unique 16bit id here. > > > > Okay, I see your point. Can we think of having a new lock tag for this with > classid, > objid, objsubid for the first three fields of locktag field? We can use a new > macro SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION and a common function to set the > tag and acquire the lock. One more point related to this is that I am > suggesting > classid by referring to SET_LOCKTAG_OBJECT as that is used in the current > patch but do you think we need it for our purpose, won't subscription id and > xid can uniquely identify the tag?
I agree that it could be better to have a new lock tag. Another point is that the remote xid and Local xid could be the same in some rare cases, so I think we might need to add another identifier to make it unique. Maybe : locktag_field1 : subscription oid locktag_field2 : xid(remote or local) locktag_field3 : 0(lock for stream block)/1(lock for transaction) Best regards, Hou zj