Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On 02.11.2010 00:47, Tom Lane wrote: Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu writes: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. This smells very much like http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/137052 I wonder if there's some defensive programming way to avoid bugs of this sort. It strikes me that it's not good if there isn't a recognizable invalid value for WAL locations. These bits of code show that there is reason to have one. Maybe we should teach initdb to start the WAL one segment later, and then 0/0 *would* mean invalid, and we could revert these other hacks. Good idea. That can even be back-patched to 9.0, it should have no effect on existing installations, -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On 01.11.2010 05:21, Robert Haas wrote: There seem to be two cases in the code that can generate that error. One, attempting to open the file returns ENOENT. Two, after the data has been read, the last-removed position returned by XLogGetLastRemoved precedes the data we think we just read, implying that it was overwritten while we were in the process of reading it. Does your installation have debugging symbols? Can you figure out which case is triggering (inside XLogRead) and what the values of log, seg, lastRemovedLog, and lastRemovedSeg are? An easy way to find out which ereport() it is is to set log_error_verbosity='verbose' and re-run the test. You then get the file and line number of the ereport in the log. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On 31.10.2010 23:31, Greg Smith wrote: LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1 port=52571 FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been removed Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, and hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed: [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog -rw--- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 0001 drwx-- 2 master master 4096 Oct 4 12:28 archive_status [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/ total 0 So why isn't SR handing that data over? Is there some weird unhandled corner case this exposes, but that wasn't encountered by the systems the tutorial was tried out on? Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. We keep track of the last removed WAL segment, and before a piece of WAL is sent to the standby, walsender checks that the requested WAL segment is the last removed. Before any WAL segments have been removed since postmaster startup, the latest removed segment is initialized to 0/0, with the idea that 0/0 precedes any valid WAL segment. That's clearly not true though, it does not precede the very first WAL segment after initdb, 0/0. Seems that we need to change the meaning of the last removed WAL segment to avoid the ambiguity of 0/0. Let's store the (last removed)+1 in the global variable instead. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On 01.11.2010 09:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 31.10.2010 23:31, Greg Smith wrote: LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1 port=52571 FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been removed Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, and hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed: [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog -rw--- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 0001 drwx-- 2 master master 4096 Oct 4 12:28 archive_status [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/ total 0 So why isn't SR handing that data over? Is there some weird unhandled corner case this exposes, but that wasn't encountered by the systems the tutorial was tried out on? Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. We keep track of the last removed WAL segment, and before a piece of WAL is sent to the standby, walsender checks that the requested WAL segment is the last removed. Before any WAL segments have been removed since postmaster startup, the latest removed segment is initialized to 0/0, with the idea that 0/0 precedes any valid WAL segment. That's clearly not true though, it does not precede the very first WAL segment after initdb, 0/0. Seems that we need to change the meaning of the last removed WAL segment to avoid the ambiguity of 0/0. Let's store the (last removed)+1 in the global variable instead. Committed that. Thanks for the report, both of you. I'm not subscribed to pgsql-admin which is why I didn't see Matt's original report. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Committed that. Thanks for the report, both of you. I'm not subscribed to pgsql-admin which is why I didn't see Matt's original report. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. I confirmed that the bug exists in only this case by taking my problem install and doing this: psql -d postgres -c checkpoint; select pg_switch_xlog(); To force it to the next xlog file. With only that change, everything else then works. So we'll just need to warn people about this issue and provide that workaround, as something that only trivial new installs without much data loaded into them are likely to run into, until 9.0.2 ships with your fix in it. I'll update the docs on the wiki accordingly, once I've recovered from this morning's flight out West. I forgot to credit Robert Noles here for rediscovering this bug on one of our systems and bringing it to my attention. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Supportwww.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. This smells very much like http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/137052 I wonder if there's some defensive programming way to avoid bugs of this sort. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. This smells very much like http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/137052 I wonder if there's some defensive programming way to avoid bugs of this sort. It strikes me that it's not good if there isn't a recognizable invalid value for WAL locations. These bits of code show that there is reason to have one. Maybe we should teach initdb to start the WAL one segment later, and then 0/0 *would* mean invalid, and we could revert these other hacks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
Last week we got this report from Matt Chesler: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2010-10/msg00221.php that he was getting errors when trying to do a simple binary replication test. The problem is that what appears to be a perfectly good WAL segment doesn't get streamed to the standby. No one responded. One of our testers just ran into the same thing. I just investigated, and I'm baffled as to what's going on myself. Can't tell if this is a bug or an under-documented restriction, but this makes two reports of the problem now. (Mine is happening on a standard 9.0.0 RPM set, didn't notice any changes in 9.0.1 that would impact this; afraid to upgrade while I have a repeatable test case for this sitting here) The setup is intended to get a simple test replication setup going without even having to do the whole pg_start_backup shuffle, by copying the whole server directory when it's down. Basic steps are: -Follow the first set of instructions at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Binary_Replication_Tutorial to setup a master compatible with replication, then duplicate it after stopping it using rsync. Note that you may have to manually create an empty pg_xlog directory on the standby, depending on what was there before you started replication. To rule out one possible source of problems here, I made an additional change on the master not listed there: [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ psql -d postgres -c show wal_keep_segments wal_keep_segments --- 10 I wondered if having this set to 0 (the default) was causing the issue, thinking perhaps it doesn't do any looking for existing segments at all in that situation. Problem still happens for me. -Create a recovery.conf pointing to the master as described in the tutorial. -Start the standby. Make sure that it has reached the point where it's requesting WAL segments from the master; you want to see it looping doing periodic FATAL: could not connect to the primary server: could not connect to server: Connection refused before touching the master. -Start the master What I expect to happen now is that the current WAL file that was in progress at the point the data was copied over gets streamed over. That doesn't seem to happen. Instead, I see this on the standby: LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been removed This on the master: LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1 port=52571 FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been removed Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, and hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed: [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog -rw--- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 0001 drwx-- 2 master master 4096 Oct 4 12:28 archive_status [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/ total 0 So why isn't SR handing that data over? Is there some weird unhandled corner case this exposes, but that wasn't encountered by the systems the tutorial was tried out on? I'm not familiar enough with the SR internals to reason out what's going wrong myself yet. Wanted to validate that Matt's report wasn't a unique one though, with a bit more detail included about the state the system gets into, and one potential fix (increasing wal_keep_segments) already tried without improvement. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Supportwww.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, and hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed: [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog -rw--- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 0001 drwx-- 2 master master 4096 Oct 4 12:28 archive_status [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog/archive_status/ total 0 So why isn't SR handing that data over? Is there some weird unhandled corner case this exposes, but that wasn't encountered by the systems the tutorial was tried out on? I'm not familiar enough with the SR internals to reason out what's going wrong myself yet. Wanted to validate that Matt's report wasn't a unique one though, with a bit more detail included about the state the system gets into, and one potential fix (increasing wal_keep_segments) already tried without improvement. There seem to be two cases in the code that can generate that error. One, attempting to open the file returns ENOENT. Two, after the data has been read, the last-removed position returned by XLogGetLastRemoved precedes the data we think we just read, implying that it was overwritten while we were in the process of reading it. Does your installation have debugging symbols? Can you figure out which case is triggering (inside XLogRead) and what the values of log, seg, lastRemovedLog, and lastRemovedSeg are? Even if you lack debugging symbols, if you have gdb, you might be able figure out which case is triggering by looking at whether XLogGetLastRemoved gets called before the error message is printed (put a breakpoint on that function). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
