On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:12 PM Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 08:48, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > + if (!InsertRequestIntoErrorUndoQueue(urinfo))
> > > I was thinking what happens if for some reason
> > > InsertRequestIntoErrorUndoQueue() itself errors out. In that case, the
> > > entry will not be marked invalid, and so there will be no undo action
> > > carried out because I think the undo worker will exit. What happens
> > > next with this entry ?
> >
> > The same entry is present in two queues xid and size, so next time it
> > will be executed from the second queue based on it's priority in that
> > queue. However, if it fails again a second time in the same way, then
> > we will be in trouble because now the hash table has entry, but none
> > of the queues has entry, so none of the workers will attempt to
> > execute again. Also, when discard worker again tries to register it,
> > we won't allow adding the entry to queue thinking either some backend
> > is executing the same or it must be part of some queue.
> >
> > The one possibility to deal with this could be that we somehow allow
> > discard worker to register it again in the queue or we can do this in
> > critical section so that it allows system restart on error. However,
> > the main thing is it possible that InsertRequestIntoErrorUndoQueue
> > will fail unless there is some bug in the code? If so, we might want
> > to have an Assert for this rather than handling this condition.
>
> Yes, I also think that the function would error out only because of
> can't-happen cases, like "too many locks taken" or "out of binary heap
> slots" or "out of memory" (this last one is not such a can't happen
> case). These cases happen probably due to some bugs, I suppose. But I
> was wondering : Generally when the code errors out with such
> can't-happen elog() calls, worst thing that happens is that the
> transaction gets aborted. Whereas, in this case, the worst thing that
> could happen is : the undo action would never get executed, which
> means selects for this tuple will keep on accessing the undo log ?
>
Yeah, or in zheap, we have page-wise rollback facility which rollbacks
the transaction for a particular page (this gets triggers whenever we
try to update/delete a tuple which was last updated by aborted xact or
when we try to reuse slot of aborted xact) and we don't need to
traverse undo chain.
> This does not sound like any data consistency issue, so we should be
> fine after all ?
>
I will see if we can have an Assert in the code for this.
>
> --------------
>
> +if (UndoGetWork(false, false, &urinfo, NULL) &&
> + IsUndoWorkerAvailable())
> + UndoWorkerLaunch(urinfo);
>
> There is no lock acquired between IsUndoWorkerAvailable() and
> UndoWorkerLaunch(); that means even though IsUndoWorkerAvailable()
> returns true, there is a small window where UndoWorkerLaunch() does
> not find any worker slot with in_use false, causing assertion failure
> for (worker != NULL).
> --------------
>
Yeah, I think UndoWorkerLaunch should be able to return without
launching worker in such a case.
>
> + if (!RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker(&bgw, &bgw_handle))
> + {
> + /* Failed to start worker, so clean up the worker slot. */
> + LWLockAcquire(UndoWorkerLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
> + UndoWorkerCleanup(worker);
> + LWLockRelease(UndoWorkerLock);
> +
> + return false;
> + }
>
> Is it intentional that there is no (warning?) message logged when we
> can't register a bg worker ?
> -------------
I don't think it was intentional. I think it will be good to have a
warning here.
I agree with all your other comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
