## Problem
For any given tenant shard, pageservers receive all of the tenant's WAL
from the safekeeper.
This soft-blocks us from using larger shard counts due to bandwidth
concerns and CPU overhead of filtering
out the records.
## Summary of changes
This PR lifts the decoding and interpretation of WAL from the pageserver
into the safekeeper.
A customised PG replication protocol is used where instead of sending
raw WAL, the safekeeper sends
filtered, interpreted records. The receiver drives the protocol
selection, so, on the pageserver side, usage
of the new protocol is gated by a new pageserver config:
`wal_receiver_protocol`.
More granularly the changes are:
1. Optionally inject the protocol and shard identity into the arguments
used for starting replication
2. On the safekeeper side, implement a new wal sending primitive which
decodes and interprets records
before sending them over
3. On the pageserver side, implement the ingestion of this new
replication message type. It's very similar
to what we already have for raw wal (minus decoding and interpreting).
## Notes
* This PR currently uses my [branch of
rust-postgres](https://github.com/neondatabase/rust-postgres/tree/vlad/interpreted-wal-record-replication-support)
which includes the deserialization logic for the new replication message
type. PR for that is open
[here](https://github.com/neondatabase/rust-postgres/pull/32).
* This PR contains changes for both pageservers and safekeepers. It's
safe to merge because the new protocol is disabled by default on the
pageserver side. We can gradually start enabling it in subsequent
releases.
* CI tests are running on https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9747
## Links
Related: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9336
Epic: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9329
## Problem
It turns out that `WalStreamDecoder::poll_decode` returns the start LSN
of the next record and not the end LSN of the current record. They are
not always equal. For example, they're not equal when the record in
question is an XLOG SWITCH record.
## Summary of changes
Rename things to reflect that.
## Problem
We want to serialize interpreted records to send them over the wire from
safekeeper to pageserver.
## Summary of changes
Make `InterpretedWalRecord` ser/de. This is a temporary change to get
the bulk of the lift merged in
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9746. For going to prod, we
don't want to use bincode since we can't evolve the schema.
Questions on serialization will be tackled separately.
## Problem
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9524 split the decoding and
interpretation step from ingestion.
The output of the first phase is a `wal_decoder::models::InterpretedWalRecord`.
Before this patch set that struct contained a list of `Value` instances.
We wish to lift the decoding and interpretation step to the safekeeper,
but it would be nice if the safekeeper gave us a batch containing the raw data instead of actual values.
## Summary of changes
Main goal here is to make `InterpretedWalRecord` hold a raw buffer which
contains pre-serialized Values.
For this we do:
1. Add a `SerializedValueBatch` type. This is `inmemory_layer::SerializedBatch` with some
extra functionality for extension, observing values for shard 0 and tests.
2. Replace `inmemory_layer::SerializedBatch` with `SerializedValueBatch`
3. Make `DatadirModification` maintain a `SerializedValueBatch`.
### `DatadirModification` changes
`DatadirModification` now maintains a `SerializedValueBatch` and extends
it as new WAL records come in (to avoid flushing to disk on every
record).
In turn, this cascaded into a number of modifications to
`DatadirModification`:
1. Replace `pending_data_pages` and `pending_zero_data_pages` with `pending_data_batch`.
2. Removal of `pending_zero_data_pages` and its cousin `on_wal_record_end`
3. Rename `pending_bytes` to `pending_metadata_bytes` since this is what it tracks now.
4. Adapting of various utility methods like `len`, `approx_pending_bytes` and `has_dirty_data_pages`.
Removal of `pending_zero_data_pages` and the optimisation associated
with it ((1) and (2)) deserves more detail.
Previously all zero data pages went through `pending_zero_data_pages`.
We wrote zero data pages when filling gaps caused by relation extension
(case A) and when handling special wal records (case B). If it happened
that the same WAL record contained a non zero write for an entry in
`pending_zero_data_pages` we skipped the zero write.
Case A: We handle this differently now. When ingesting the
`SerialiezdValueBatch` associated with one PG WAL record, we identify the gaps and fill the
them in one go. Essentially, we move from a per key process (gaps were filled after each
new key), and replace it with a per record process. Hence, the optimisation is not
required anymore.
Case B: When the handling of a special record needs to zero out a key,
it just adds that to the current batch. I inspected the code, and I
don't think the optimisation kicked in here.
