> 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?
Your patches look good to me. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
