Hello, thank you for looking this.

At Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:39:59 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> 
wrote in <cab7npqtv5gmkqcndofgtgqoqxz2xlz4rrw247oqojzztvy6...@mail.gmail.com>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > Hello, I found that pg_basebackup from a replication standby
> > fails after the following steps, on 9.3 and the master.
> >
> > - start a replication master
> > - start a replication standby
> > - stop the master in the mode other than immediate.
> >
> > pg_basebackup to the standby will fail with the following error.
> >
> >> pg_basebackup: could not get transaction log end position from server:
> >> ERROR:  could not find any WAL files
> Indeed, and you could just do the following to reproduce the failure
> with the recovery test suite, so I would suggest adding this test in
> the patch:
> --- a/src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl
> +++ b/src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl
> @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ $node_standby_1->start;
>  # pg_basebackup works on a standby).
>  $node_standby_1->backup($backup_name);
> +# Take a second backup of the standby while the master is offline.
> +$node_master->stop;
> +$node_standby_1->backup('my_backup_2');
> +$node_master->start;

I'm not sure that adding the test case for a particular bug like
this is appropriate. But it would be acceptable because it
doesn't take long time and it is separate from standard checks.

> > After looking more closely, I found that the minRecoveryPoint
> > tends to be too small as the backup end point, and up to the
> > record at the lastReplayedRecPtr can affect the pages on disk and
> > they can go into the backup just taken.
> >
> > My conclusion here is that do_pg_stop_backup should return
> > lastReplayedRecPtr, not minRecoveryPoint.
> I have been thinking quite a bit about this patch, and this logic
> sounds quite right to me. When stopping the backup we need to let the
> user know up to which point it needs to replay WAL, and relation pages
> are touched up to lastReplayedEndRecPtr.

Yes, but by design, the changes in buffers don't go into disk
until buffer replacing occurs, which updates minRecoveryPoint. My
understanding is that the problem is that a restart point that is
not accompanied with buffer updates advances only the redo point
of the last checkpoint and doesn't update minRecoveryPoint, which
may be behind the redo point at the time.

It seems to me that we could more agressively advance the
minRecoveryPoint (but must not let it go too far..), but it is
right for it to aim a bit smaller than the ideal location.

So I proposed the patch as a solution instead of changing
minRecoveryPoint's movement. As the result, the explanation for
it is accurate enough, but obscuring the root cause.

> This LSN could be greater
> than the minimum recovery point as there is no record to mark the end
> of the backup, and pg_control has normally, well surely, being backup
> up last but that's not a new problem it would as well have been backup
> up before the minimum recovery point has been reached...

Yes. it would cause no new problem except that the amount of WAL
files to be copied could be larger than ideal amount.

> Still, perhaps we could improve the documentation regarding that? Say
> it is recommended to enforce the minimum recovery point in pg_control
> to the stop backup LSN to ensure that the backup recovers to a
> consistent state when taking a backup from a standby.

If I understand that correctly, I don't find a explicit mention
to minimum recovery point (and should not be, I suppose) in PITR
and pg_baseback pages in the documentaiton.

Up to where we need to reach a consistent state from a backup is
not the "Minimum recovery ending point" in pg_control. It holds
the consistency point in the previous recovery. What we need to
reach there for a backup is the WAL files up to the LSN returned
by the (do_)pg_stop_backup(). All of the files should have been
archived on master and should have been automatically transferred
by pg_basebackup with -X/x option.  (I don't know what to do when
-X/x is not specified for pg_basebackup to standby, though..)

> I am attaching an updated patch with the test btw.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to