On Apr14, 2013, at 17:56 , Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
> At fast shutdown, after walsender sends the checkpoint record and
> closes the replication connection, walreceiver can detect the close
> of connection before receiving all WAL records. This means that,
> even if walsender sends all WAL records, walreceiver cannot always
> receive all of them.
That sounds like a bug in walreceiver to me.
The following code in walreceiver's main loop looks suspicious:
/*
* Process the received data, and any subsequent data we
* can read without blocking.
*/
for (;;)
{
if (len > 0)
{
/* Something was received from master, so reset timeout */
...
XLogWalRcvProcessMsg(buf[0], &buf[1], len - 1);
}
else if (len == 0)
break;
else if (len < 0)
{
ereport(LOG,
(errmsg("replication terminated by primary server"),
errdetail("End of WAL reached on timeline %u at %X/%X",
startpointTLI,
(uint32) (LogstreamResult.Write >> 32),
(uint32) LogstreamResult.Write)));
...
}
len = walrcv_receive(0, &buf);
}
/* Let the master know that we received some data. */
XLogWalRcvSendReply(false, false);
/*
* If we've written some records, flush them to disk and
* let the startup process and primary server know about
* them.
*/
XLogWalRcvFlush(false);
The loop at the top looks fine - it specifically avoids throwing
an error on EOF. But the code then proceeds to XLogWalRcvSendReply()
which doesn't seem to have the same smarts - it simply does
if (PQputCopyData(streamConn, buffer, nbytes) <= 0 ||
PQflush(streamConn))
ereport(ERROR,
(errmsg("could not send data to WAL stream: %s",
PQerrorMessage(streamConn))));
Unless I'm missing something, that certainly seems to explain
how a standby can lag behind even after a controlled shutdown of
the master.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
