Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Where are we on this? --- Tom Lane wrote: In this thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-03/msg00145.php we eventually determined that the reported lockup had three components: (1) something (still not sure what --- Martin and Mark, I'd really like to know) was issuing random SIGTERMs to various postgres processes including autovacuum. (2) if a SIGTERM happens to arrive while btbulkdelete is running, the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will do elog(FATAL), causing elog.c to do proc_exit(0), leaving the vacuum still recorded as active in the shared memory array maintained by _bt_start_vacuum/_bt_end_vacuum. The PG_TRY block in btbulkdelete doesn't get a chance to clean up. (3) eventually, either we try to re-vacuum the same index or accumulation of bogus active entries overflows the array. Either way, _bt_start_vacuum throws an error, which btbulkdelete PG_CATCHes, leading to_bt_end_vacuum trying to re-acquire the LWLock already taken by _bt_start_vacuum, meaning that the process hangs up. And then so does anything else that needs to take that LWLock... Point (3) is already fixed in CVS, but point (2) is a lot nastier. What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll get to do it. Now this is not a big deal during normal SIGTERM or SIGQUIT database shutdown, because we're going to abandon the shared memory segment anyway. However, if we ever want to support individual session kill via SIGTERM, it's a problem. Even if we were not interested in someday considering that a supported feature, it seems that dealing with random SIGTERMs is needed for robustness in at least some environments. AFAICS, there are basically two ways we might try to approach this: Plan A: establish the rule that you mustn't try to clean up shared memory state in a PG_CATCH block. Anything you need to do like that has to be handled by an on_shmem_exit hook function, so it will be called during a FATAL exit. (Or maybe you can do it in PG_CATCH for normal ERROR cases, but you need a backing on_shmem_exit hook to clean up for FATAL.) Plan B: change the handling of FATAL errors so that they are thrown like normal errors, and the proc_exit call happens only when we get out to the outermost control level in postgres.c. This would mean that PG_CATCH blocks get a chance to clean up before the FATAL exit happens. The problem with that is that a non-cooperative PG_CATCH block might think it could recover from the error, and then the exit does not happen at all. We'd need a coding rule that PG_CATCH blocks *must* re-throw FATAL errors, which seems at least as ugly as Plan A. In particular, all three of the external-interpreter PLs are willing to return errors into the external interpreter, and AFAICS we'd be entirely at the mercy of the user-written Perl or Python or Tcl code whether it re-throws the error or not. So Plan B seems unacceptably fragile. Does anyone see a way to fix it, or perhaps a Plan C with a totally different idea? Plan A seems pretty ugly but it's the best I can come up with. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on this? Still trying to think of a less messy solution... What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll get to do it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on this? Still trying to think of a less messy solution... OK, put in the patches hold queue for 8.4. --- What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll get to do it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Tom Lane wrote: 2) if a SIGTERM happens to arrive while btbulkdelete is running, the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will do elog(FATAL), causing elog.c to do proc_exit(0), leaving the vacuum still recorded as active in the shared memory array maintained by _bt_start_vacuum/_bt_end_vacuum. The PG_TRY block in btbulkdelete doesn't get a chance to clean up. I skimmed through all users of PG_TRY/CATCH in the backend to check if there's other problems like that looming. There's one that looks dangerous in pg_start_backup() in xlog.c. forcePageWrites flag in shared memory is cleared in a PG_CATCH block. It's not as severe, though, as it can be cleared manually by calling pg_stop_backup(), and only leads to degraded performance. (3) eventually, either we try to re-vacuum the same index or accumulation of bogus active entries overflows the array. Either way, _bt_start_vacuum throws an error, which btbulkdelete PG_CATCHes, leading to_bt_end_vacuum trying to re-acquire the LWLock already taken by _bt_start_vacuum, meaning that the process hangs up. And then so does anything else that needs to take that LWLock... I also looked for other occurances of point (3), but couldn't find any, so I guess we're now safe from it. Point (3) is already fixed in CVS, but point (2) is a lot nastier. What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll get to do it. Now this is not a big deal during normal SIGTERM or SIGQUIT database shutdown, because we're going to abandon the shared memory segment anyway. However, if we ever want to support individual session kill via SIGTERM, it's a problem. Even if we were not interested in someday considering that a supported feature, it seems that dealing with random SIGTERMs is needed for robustness in at least some environments. Agreed. We should do our best to be safe from SIGTERMs, even if we don't consider it supported. AFAICS, there are basically two ways we might try to approach this: Plan A: establish the rule that you mustn't try to clean up shared memory state in a PG_CATCH block. Anything you need to do like that has to be handled by an on_shmem_exit hook function, so it will be called during a FATAL exit. (Or maybe you can do it in PG_CATCH for normal ERROR cases, but you need a backing on_shmem_exit hook to clean up for FATAL.) Plan B: change the handling of FATAL errors so that they are thrown like normal errors, and the proc_exit call happens only when we get out to the outermost control level in postgres.c. This would mean that PG_CATCH blocks get a chance to clean up before the FATAL exit happens. The problem with that is that a non-cooperative PG_CATCH block might think it could recover from the error, and then the exit does not happen at all. We'd need a coding rule that PG_CATCH blocks *must* re-throw FATAL errors, which seems at least as ugly as Plan A. In particular, all three of the external-interpreter PLs are willing to return errors into the external interpreter, and AFAICS we'd be entirely at the mercy of the user-written Perl or Python or Tcl code whether it re-throws the error or not. So Plan B seems unacceptably fragile. Does anyone see a way to fix it, or perhaps a Plan C with a totally different idea? Plan A seems pretty ugly but it's the best I can come up with. Yeah, plan A seems like the way to go. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: FWIW, you might want to put some safeguards in there so that you don't try to inadvertently kill the backend that's running that function... unfortunately I don't think there's a built-in function to tell you the PID of the backend you're connected to; if you're connecting via TCP you could use inet_client_addr() and inet_client_port(), but that won't work if you're using the socket to connect. *wipes egg off face* There is a pg_backend_pid() function, even if it's not documented with the other functions (it's in the stats function stuff for some reason). -- Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: AFAICS, there are basically two ways we might try to approach this: Plan A: establish the rule that you mustn't try to clean up shared memory state in a PG_CATCH block. Anything you need to do like that has to be handled by an on_shmem_exit hook function, so it will be called during a FATAL exit. (Or maybe you can do it in PG_CATCH for normal ERROR cases, but you need a backing on_shmem_exit hook to clean up for FATAL.) ... So Plan B seems unacceptably fragile. Does anyone see a way to fix it, or perhaps a Plan C with a totally different idea? Plan A seems pretty ugly but it's the best I can come up with. Yeah, plan A seems like the way to go. The alternative is that instead of a general purpose shmem hook you note the pid of the process that is expecting to handle the cleanup. So for instance something like pg_start_backup instead of setting a flag would store its pid. Then someone else who comes along and finds the field set has to double check if the pid is actually still around and if not it has to clean it up itself. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Jim Nasby wrote: On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: FWIW, you might want to put some safeguards in there so that you don't try to inadvertently kill the backend that's running that function... unfortunately I don't think there's a built-in function to tell you the PID of the backend you're connected to; if you're connecting via TCP you could use inet_client_addr() and inet_client_port(), but that won't work if you're using the socket to connect. *wipes egg off face* There is a pg_backend_pid() function, even if it's not documented with the other functions (it's in the stats function stuff for some reason). eh. No worries - my safeguard is just a comment saying 'don't connect to the same database you are killing the connections of' :-) -- Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical Ltd.http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
FWIW, you might want to put some safeguards in there so that you don't try to inadvertently kill the backend that's running that function... unfortunately I don't think there's a built-in function to tell you the PID of the backend you're connected to; if you're connecting via TCP you could use inet_client_addr() and inet_client_port(), but that won't work if you're using the socket to connect. On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote: Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Tom Lane wrote: (1) something (still not sure what --- Martin and Mark, I'd really like to know) was issuing random SIGTERMs to various postgres processes including autovacuum. This may be a misfeature in our test harness - I'll ask Stuart Bishop to comment. After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION _killall_backends(text) RETURNS Boolean AS $$ import os from signal import SIGTERM plan = plpy.prepare( SELECT procpid FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE datname=$1, ['text'] ) success = True for row in plpy.execute(plan, args): try: plpy.info(Killing %d % row['procpid']) os.kill(row['procpid'], SIGTERM) except OSError: success = False return success $$ LANGUAGE plpythonu; -- Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:// www.canonical.com/ Canonical Ltd.http://www.ubuntu.com/ -- Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Tom Lane wrote: Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. Just to make it perfectly clear: we don't consider SIGTERMing individual backends to be a supported operation (maybe someday, but not today). That's why you had to resort to plpythonu to do this. I hope you don't have anything analogous in your production databases ... No - just the test suite. It seems the only way to terminate any open connections, which is a requirement for hooking PostgreSQL up to a test suite or any other situation where you need to drop a database *now* rather than when your clients decide to disconnect (well... unless we refactor to start a dedicated postgres instance for each test, but our overheads are already pretty huge). -- Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical Ltd.http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Tom Lane wrote: Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. Just to make it perfectly clear: we don't consider SIGTERMing individual backends to be a supported operation (maybe someday, but not today). That's why you had to resort to plpythonu to do this. I hope you don't have anything analogous in your production databases ... Ah, that could explain it. With the recent patches it seems to be working OK, but I guess we should find a more standard way to rejig the db during the test runs. Mark
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Tom Lane wrote: (1) something (still not sure what --- Martin and Mark, I'd really like to know) was issuing random SIGTERMs to various postgres processes including autovacuum. This may be a misfeature in our test harness - I'll ask Stuart Bishop to comment. Mark
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Tom Lane wrote: (1) something (still not sure what --- Martin and Mark, I'd really like to know) was issuing random SIGTERMs to various postgres processes including autovacuum. This may be a misfeature in our test harness - I'll ask Stuart Bishop to comment. After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION _killall_backends(text) RETURNS Boolean AS $$ import os from signal import SIGTERM plan = plpy.prepare( SELECT procpid FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE datname=$1, ['text'] ) success = True for row in plpy.execute(plan, args): try: plpy.info(Killing %d % row['procpid']) os.kill(row['procpid'], SIGTERM) except OSError: success = False return success $$ LANGUAGE plpythonu; -- Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical Ltd.http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Stuart Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. Just to make it perfectly clear: we don't consider SIGTERMing individual backends to be a supported operation (maybe someday, but not today). That's why you had to resort to plpythonu to do this. I hope you don't have anything analogous in your production databases ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
[HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
In this thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-03/msg00145.php we eventually determined that the reported lockup had three components: (1) something (still not sure what --- Martin and Mark, I'd really like to know) was issuing random SIGTERMs to various postgres processes including autovacuum. (2) if a SIGTERM happens to arrive while btbulkdelete is running, the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will do elog(FATAL), causing elog.c to do proc_exit(0), leaving the vacuum still recorded as active in the shared memory array maintained by _bt_start_vacuum/_bt_end_vacuum. The PG_TRY block in btbulkdelete doesn't get a chance to clean up. (3) eventually, either we try to re-vacuum the same index or accumulation of bogus active entries overflows the array. Either way, _bt_start_vacuum throws an error, which btbulkdelete PG_CATCHes, leading to_bt_end_vacuum trying to re-acquire the LWLock already taken by _bt_start_vacuum, meaning that the process hangs up. And then so does anything else that needs to take that LWLock... Point (3) is already fixed in CVS, but point (2) is a lot nastier. What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll get to do it. Now this is not a big deal during normal SIGTERM or SIGQUIT database shutdown, because we're going to abandon the shared memory segment anyway. However, if we ever want to support individual session kill via SIGTERM, it's a problem. Even if we were not interested in someday considering that a supported feature, it seems that dealing with random SIGTERMs is needed for robustness in at least some environments. AFAICS, there are basically two ways we might try to approach this: Plan A: establish the rule that you mustn't try to clean up shared memory state in a PG_CATCH block. Anything you need to do like that has to be handled by an on_shmem_exit hook function, so it will be called during a FATAL exit. (Or maybe you can do it in PG_CATCH for normal ERROR cases, but you need a backing on_shmem_exit hook to clean up for FATAL.) Plan B: change the handling of FATAL errors so that they are thrown like normal errors, and the proc_exit call happens only when we get out to the outermost control level in postgres.c. This would mean that PG_CATCH blocks get a chance to clean up before the FATAL exit happens. The problem with that is that a non-cooperative PG_CATCH block might think it could recover from the error, and then the exit does not happen at all. We'd need a coding rule that PG_CATCH blocks *must* re-throw FATAL errors, which seems at least as ugly as Plan A. In particular, all three of the external-interpreter PLs are willing to return errors into the external interpreter, and AFAICS we'd be entirely at the mercy of the user-written Perl or Python or Tcl code whether it re-throws the error or not. So Plan B seems unacceptably fragile. Does anyone see a way to fix it, or perhaps a Plan C with a totally different idea? Plan A seems pretty ugly but it's the best I can come up with. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
