On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 18:11 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 19:31 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 20:20 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:06 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > >> > Le 05/26/2011 12:57 AM, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit : > > >> > [...] > > >> > >> When I do the pcp_detach_node, I have this: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:24:12 LOG: pid 31861: notice_backend_error: 0 fail > > >> > >> over > > >> > >> request from pid 31861 > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:24:12 LOG: pid 31828: starting degeneration. > > >> > >> shutdown > > >> > >> host localhost(5432) > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:24:12 ERROR: pid 31828: failover_handler: no valid DB > > >> > >> node > > >> > >> found > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:24:12 LOG: pid 31828: failover done. shutdown host > > >> > >> localhost(5432) > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Which seems fine to me. Then I do the pcp_attach_node, and I got > > >> > >> this: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:25:23 LOG: pid 31861: send_failback_request: fail > > >> > >> back 0 > > >> > >> th node request from pid 31861 > > >> > >> 2011-05-25 20:25:23 ERROR: pid 31861: send_failback_request: node 0 > > >> > >> is > > >> > >> alive. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I was mistaken on the "node 0 is alive" message. I thought it means > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> node 0 is NOW up. What it really means is that pgpool thought it was > > >> > >> ALREADY alive (hence the ERROR message level on the > > >> > >> send_failback_request function). Digging harder on this issue, I > > >> > >> finally > > >> > >> found that the VALID_BACKEND macro returns true when it should > > >> > >> return > > >> > >> false. Actually, there is already this comment in > > >> > >> get_next_master_node(): > > >> > >> > > >> > >> /* > > >> > >> * Do not use VALID_BACKEND macro in raw mode. > > >> > >> * VALID_BACKEND return true only if the argument is master > > >> > >> * node id. In other words, standby nodes are false. So need > > >> > >> * to check backend status without VALID_BACKEND. > > >> > >> */ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> And I'm actually in raw mode. VALID_BACKEND is used so much it > > >> > >> would be > > >> > >> really dangerous to change it. So, I'm not sure what we really > > >> > >> should do > > >> > >> here. I've got a patch that fixes my issue cleanly, not sure it's > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> best way to do this. See the patch in attachment. > > >> > > > > >> > > My suggestion is, leave this as it is for 3.0.4. I think we need more > > >> > > time to investigate it. Let's continue the work after 3.0.4 released. > > >> > > We already have critical issues such as "unnamed statement not found" > > >> > > with 3.0.3, and I have personaly sent to users who were troubled by > > >> > > this issue the 3.0-STABLE CVS tar ball by their request. If we delay > > >> > > the 3.0.4 release, more and more this kind of questions/requests will > > >> > > be coming. I don't want to be troubled... > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I agree. I have no problem with dealing with this for 3.0.5, or even > > >> > 3.1. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Now that 3.0.4 is out, maybe it's the right time to work on this. > > >> > > >> This issue is really a bad one. I had this week a mail from one of our > > >> customers, complaining that the online recovery process doesn't work > > >> because it thinks the node is still alive. And guess what... it uses the > > >> VALID_BACKEND, even if pgpool was working in raw mode. > > >> > > >> What could we do about this? My patch fixes the previous error, but not > > >> this one. I now would be more in favor of a VALID_RAW_BACKEND macro. > > >> > > > > > > No comments on this? meaning I finish my patch and commit it? or meaning > > > we don't care about that issue? :) > > > > Can you please explain why you use raw mode *and* online recovery > > together? To be honest I have not thought about such a use case. > > Yeah, I tried a few things and I didn't find a way to reproduce that > behaviour. I sent an email to my customer to know more about this issue. >
Seems I really can't reproduce the issue. > Anyway, my first patch still applies. The one in the mail sent Wed, 25 > May 2011 22:13:17 +0200, on this thread. > Tatsuo, any new comments on that mail? -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
