Re: [HACKERS] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Fujii Masao wrote: One problem of the patch is that even if the content of error message is different from the past, it would be skipped when the location of invalid record is the same of the past. For example, if there is a partially-filled unbroken WAL file in the standby, the following message would be written: record with zero length at %X/%X Then if you drop corrupted WAL file into pg_xlog, the following message might have to be output, but would be skipped: invalid magic number %04X in log file %u, segment %u, offset %u But I think that we might be able to live with the issue since it's a very corner case. Yeah, we can live with that. The user is not generally interested in what exactly is wrong with the record. It just indicates that it has the end of valid WAL in the standby. Applied. -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: We have the emode_for_corrupt_record() function that's used in all the errors that indicate a corrupt WAL record, that's a perfect place to hook this into. See attached patch. The test for elog == LOG seems a bit fragile to me - why that specifically? Maybe elog PANIC? elog DEBUG1? Both? Suppressing anything = ERROR wouldn't make sense, as ERRORs cause the replay to abort. I didn't want to affect WARNINGs either, which indicate that something is truly wrong. The only level left between DEBUG1, which is what the message is downgraded to, and WARNING, is 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: We have the emode_for_corrupt_record() function that's used in all the errors that indicate a corrupt WAL record, that's a perfect place to hook this into. See attached patch. One problem of the patch is that even if the content of error message is different from the past, it would be skipped when the location of invalid record is the same of the past. For example, if there is a partially-filled unbroken WAL file in the standby, the following message would be written: record with zero length at %X/%X Then if you drop corrupted WAL file into pg_xlog, the following message might have to be output, but would be skipped: invalid magic number %04X in log file %u, segment %u, offset %u But I think that we might be able to live with the issue since it's a very corner case. 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
* If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor
restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck.
It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into
pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the
message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the
first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be
suppressed until some progress has been made.
Any idea how to implement this?
I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too hard.
The tricky part, I believe, is that there's more than one message that
can potentially be emitted, and you don't want ANY of them to repeat
every 2 s, so some thought needs to be given to where to hook in the
logic.
We have the emode_for_corrupt_record() function that's used in all the
errors that indicate a corrupt WAL record, that's a perfect place to
hook this into. See attached patch.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
index be86501..7804853 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
@@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ static int XLogFileReadAnyTLI(uint32 log, uint32 seg, int emode,
int sources);
static bool XLogPageRead(XLogRecPtr *RecPtr, int emode, bool fetching_ckpt,
bool randAccess);
-static int emode_for_corrupt_record(int emode);
+static int emode_for_corrupt_record(int emode, XLogRecPtr RecPtr);
static void XLogFileClose(void);
static bool RestoreArchivedFile(char *path, const char *xlogfname,
const char *recovername, off_t expectedSize);
@@ -3543,7 +3543,7 @@ RecordIsValid(XLogRecord *record, XLogRecPtr recptr, int emode)
memcpy(bkpb, blk, sizeof(BkpBlock));
if (bkpb.hole_offset + bkpb.hole_length BLCKSZ)
{
- ereport(emode,
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, recptr),
(errmsg(incorrect hole size in record at %X/%X,
recptr.xlogid, recptr.xrecoff)));
return false;
@@ -3556,7 +3556,7 @@ RecordIsValid(XLogRecord *record, XLogRecPtr recptr, int emode)
/* Check that xl_tot_len agrees with our calculation */
if (blk != (char *) record + record-xl_tot_len)
{
- ereport(emode,
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, recptr),
(errmsg(incorrect total length in record at %X/%X,
recptr.xlogid, recptr.xrecoff)));
return false;
@@ -3569,7 +3569,7 @@ RecordIsValid(XLogRecord *record, XLogRecPtr recptr, int emode)
if (!EQ_CRC32(record-xl_crc, crc))
{
- ereport(emode,
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, recptr),
(errmsg(incorrect resource manager data checksum in record at %X/%X,
recptr.xlogid, recptr.xrecoff)));
return false;
@@ -3674,7 +3674,7 @@ retry:
}
else if (targetRecOff pageHeaderSize)
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(invalid record offset at %X/%X,
RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
@@ -3682,7 +3682,7 @@ retry:
if XLogPageHeader) readBuf)-xlp_info XLP_FIRST_IS_CONTRECORD)
targetRecOff == pageHeaderSize)
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(contrecord is requested by %X/%X,
RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
@@ -3697,7 +3697,7 @@ retry:
{
if (record-xl_len != 0)
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(invalid xlog switch record at %X/%X,
RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
@@ -3705,7 +3705,7 @@ retry:
}
else if (record-xl_len == 0)
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(record with zero length at %X/%X,
RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
@@ -3714,14 +3714,14 @@ retry:
record-xl_tot_len SizeOfXLogRecord + record-xl_len +
XLR_MAX_BKP_BLOCKS * (sizeof(BkpBlock) + BLCKSZ))
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(invalid record length at %X/%X,
RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
}
if (record-xl_rmid RM_MAX_ID)
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(invalid resource manager ID %u at %X/%X,
record-xl_rmid, RecPtr-xlogid, RecPtr-xrecoff)));
goto next_record_is_invalid;
@@ -3734,7 +3734,7 @@ retry:
*/
if (!XLByteLT(record-xl_prev, *RecPtr))
{
- ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode),
+ ereport(emode_for_corrupt_record(emode, *RecPtr),
(errmsg(record with incorrect prev-link %X/%X at %X/%X,
Re: [HACKERS] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck. It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be suppressed until some progress has been made. Any idea how to implement this? I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too hard. The tricky part, I believe, is that there's more than one message that can potentially be emitted, and you don't want ANY of them to repeat every 2 s, so some thought needs to be given to where to hook in the logic. We have the emode_for_corrupt_record() function that's used in all the errors that indicate a corrupt WAL record, that's a perfect place to hook this into. See attached patch. The test for elog == LOG seems a bit fragile to me - why that specifically? Maybe elog PANIC? elog DEBUG1? Both? But it seems basically sensible to me. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I think you could shut it down at the first point at which it is holding no locks, rather than letting it continue recovering and potentially retake some new locks. That would be more consistent with the general idea of what a smart shutdown is supposed to be about. I think the real question is whether it's worth the code complexity. I don't think it's worth. So I agree to just remove the TODO item: Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to exist as soon as all read-only connections are gone. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: OK, that looks a lot less risky than I had understood from discussions. The main thing for me is it doesn't interfere with Startup or WalReceiver, so assuming it works I've got no objections. Thanks for chasing this down, good addition. Thanks. Committed. Thanks. The following TODO item should be removed? Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to exist as soon as all read-only connections are gone. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode Or change it to something like? Change smart shutdown in standby mode so that it kills the startup and walreceiver process before waiting for the regular backends to die off 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: OK, that looks a lot less risky than I had understood from discussions. The main thing for me is it doesn't interfere with Startup or WalReceiver, so assuming it works I've got no objections. Thanks for chasing this down, good addition. Thanks. Committed. Thanks. The following TODO item should be removed? Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to exist as soon as all read-only connections are gone. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode Or change it to something like? Change smart shutdown in standby mode so that it kills the startup and walreceiver process before waiting for the regular backends to die off Yeah, we should do one of those two things, but I don't much care which. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 06:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Thanks. Committed. Thanks. The following TODO item should be removed? Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to exist as soon as all read-only connections are gone. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode Or change it to something like? Change smart shutdown in standby mode so that it kills the startup and walreceiver process before waiting for the regular backends to die off Yeah, we should do one of those two things, but I don't much care which. I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 06:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Thanks. Committed. Thanks. The following TODO item should be removed? Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to exist as soon as all read-only connections are gone. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode Or change it to something like? Change smart shutdown in standby mode so that it kills the startup and walreceiver process before waiting for the regular backends to die off Yeah, we should do one of those two things, but I don't much care which. I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying about. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying about. The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a table with a partially built index or other screw ups. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying about. The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a table with a partially built index or other screw ups. Hmm. Good point. I guess you could really only stop the startup process safely when it wasn't holding any locks anyhow - you couldn't just kill it and have it release the locks. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying about. The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a table with a partially built index or other screw ups. Hmm. Good point. I guess you could really only stop the startup process safely when it wasn't holding any locks anyhow - you couldn't just kill it and have it release the locks. ... and if it isn't holding any locks at all, there is no reason to kill Startup first = no TODO item. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to any TODO. Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying about. The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a table with a partially built index or other screw ups. Hmm. Good point. I guess you could really only stop the startup process safely when it wasn't holding any locks anyhow - you couldn't just kill it and have it release the locks. ... and if it isn't holding any locks at all, there is no reason to kill Startup first = no TODO item. I think you could shut it down at the first point at which it is holding no locks, rather than letting it continue recovering and potentially retake some new locks. That would be more consistent with the general idea of what a smart shutdown is supposed to be about. I think the real question is whether it's worth the code complexity. I suspect most people use fast shutdown most of the time anyway in real-world applications. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine with me. I'll commit it tonight. I don't see this on hackers. Have you posted it? I'd like to see what you do before it gets committed. Thanks. It's the same patch Fujii Masao posted previously, for which I previously said I would fix up the comments and docs and commit. But here is the adjusted version, which is hopefully more clear about what we're doing at why we're doing it. ...Robert smart-shutdown.patch Description: Binary data -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 07:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine with me. I'll commit it tonight. I don't see this on hackers. Have you posted it? I'd like to see what you do before it gets committed. Thanks. It's the same patch Fujii Masao posted previously, for which I previously said I would fix up the comments and docs and commit. But here is the adjusted version, which is hopefully more clear about what we're doing at why we're doing it. OK, that looks a lot less risky than I had understood from discussions. The main thing for me is it doesn't interfere with Startup or WalReceiver, so assuming it works I've got no objections. Thanks for chasing this down, good addition. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: OK, that looks a lot less risky than I had understood from discussions. The main thing for me is it doesn't interfere with Startup or WalReceiver, so assuming it works I've got no objections. Thanks for chasing this down, good addition. Thanks. Committed. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:09 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * Walsender and dblink are not interruptible on win32. - related thread I'd actually be happy to just leave it for 9.0, but it seems like consensus has been reached on how to fix it, and Fujii is working on a patch, so let's follow that through. That one is a must, for me. I would put relaying easily above any of the other stuff. That is a truly useful feature that we are very close to being able to have in this release. Adding things like quotes is not moving us forwards in any important sense. +1. I think this is easily the most important remaining issue that we need to fix, with the possible exception of the shutdown checkpoint issue. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I triaged the list of open items on the Streaming Replication wiki page. I propose that we drop the ones I've marked as Drop below, and move the remaining items to the main Open Items page for better visibility. And of course try to resolve them as quickly as possible. Thanks so much!! * Walsender and dblink are not interruptible on win32. - related thread I'd actually be happy to just leave it for 9.0, but it seems like consensus has been reached on how to fix it, and Fujii is working on a patch, so let's follow that through. Yeah, I'm reworking the patch, but I'd like to take aim at only walreceiver because the change for dblink might become too big at this point. Since no one has complained about the long-term problem of dblink, I'm no sure it really should be fixed right now. * Add the GUC parameter to specify the maximum number of log file segments held in pg_xlog directory to send to the standby server. Which is useful to avoid disk full in the primary. Not only to avoid disk full in primary but also to make it feasible to use streaming replication without archiving. It's a small change, we should do it. Yep. * pg_xlogfile_name(pg_last_xlog_receive/replay_location()) might report the wrong name. Because a backend cannot know the actual timeline which is related to the location. Drop. It's not clear which timeline those functions should return in boundary cases, when replaying records from a log file where the timeline-switch occurs. OK, but we need to add the note about that confusing behavior. How about?: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml index 57163da..da3253f 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml @@ -13206,6 +13206,8 @@ postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_xlogfile_name_offset(pg_stop_backup()); This is usually the desired behavior for managing transaction log archiving behavior, since the preceding file is the last one that currently needs to be archived. +Note that functionpg_xlogfile_name/ and functionpg_xlogfile_name_offset/ +always return an inaccurate result during recovery. /para para @@ -13279,6 +13281,11 @@ postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_xlogfile_name_offset(pg_stop_backup()); /table para +Note that functionpg_xlogfile_name/ and functionpg_xlogfile_name_offset/ +always return an inaccurate result from any of the above locations. + /para + + para The functions shown in xref linkend=functions-admin-dbsize calculate the disk space usage of database objects. /para * The documentation needs to be improved. I've done as much as I can on my own, what we need now is feedback on what needs to be improved. So I'd like to drop this, but let's add new more specific items about what needs to be improved, as people speak up. Yep. * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. I don't think that it's too big, but OK. And, ISTM we need to add the note about the longstanding confusing behavior if it's dropped. How about?: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml index 594bd7d..f8899e4 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml @@ -1339,6 +1339,7 @@ echo -17 /proc/self/oom_adj active, new connections will still be allowed, but only to superusers (this exception allows a superuser to connect to terminate online backup mode). + If the server is in recovery, it additionally waits for recovery to end. /para /listitem /varlistentry * Quotes can't be escaped in recovery.conf Under discussion. Not specific to streaming replication, and it's a pre-existing issue, but should be fixed IMHO. Yep. * Change the standby mode name. Bikeshedding without consensus. I like the standby mode the best as discussed on that thread, better than any of the proposed alternatives. Drop this item. Yep. * Fix things so that any such variables inherited from the server environment are intentionally *NOT* used for making SR connections. Drop. Besides, we have the same problem with dblink, and I don't recall anyone complaining. Yep, but I don't think that dblink has the same issue because it's often used to connect to another database on the same postgres instance, which seems proper method. The problem is that walreceiver might wrongly connect to *its* server and get stuck because no WAL records arrive for ever. Since currently we don't allow the standby to accept the replication connection, the problem will not happen in 9.0, and ISTM we don't need to address it right now. So I agree to drop. * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck. It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into pg_xlog. I concur
Re: [HACKERS] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
I wrote my previous email before reading this. On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I triaged the list of open items on the Streaming Replication wiki page. I propose that we drop the ones I've marked as Drop below, and move the remaining items to the main Open Items page for better visibility. And of course try to resolve them as quickly as possible. * Walsender and dblink are not interruptible on win32. - related thread I'd actually be happy to just leave it for 9.0, but it seems like consensus has been reached on how to fix it, and Fujii is working on a patch, so let's follow that through. Agree. * Add the GUC parameter to specify the maximum number of log file segments held in pg_xlog directory to send to the standby server. Which is useful to avoid disk full in the primary. Not only to avoid disk full in primary but also to make it feasible to use streaming replication without archiving. It's a small change, we should do it. Do we have a working patch? * pg_xlogfile_name(pg_last_xlog_receive/replay_location()) might report the wrong name. Because a backend cannot know the actual timeline which is related to the location. Drop. It's not clear which timeline those functions should return in boundary cases, when replaying records from a log file where the timeline-switch occurs. Agree. * The documentation needs to be improved. I've done as much as I can on my own, what we need now is feedback on what needs to be improved. So I'd like to drop this, but let's add new more specific items about what needs to be improved, as people speak up. Agree. It's hard to think of this as a beta-blocker without more specific feedback. * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. * Quotes can't be escaped in recovery.conf Under discussion. Not specific to streaming replication, and it's a pre-existing issue, but should be fixed IMHO. Fine with me. * Change the standby mode name. Bikeshedding without consensus. I like the standby mode the best as discussed on that thread, better than any of the proposed alternatives. Drop this item. OK. * Fix things so that any such variables inherited from the server environment are intentionally *NOT* used for making SR connections. Drop. Besides, we have the same problem with dblink, and I don't recall anyone complaining. Agree. I think that whole issue is bikeshedding. * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck. It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be suppressed until some progress has been made. Any idea how to implement this? * Remove the unnecessary section about HS from recovery.conf.sample Yeah, let's do it. Don't care. * The replication connections consume superuser_reserved_connections slots. I'd still like to change this slightly, per my suggestion on that thread, but I don't feel strongly about it. It doesn't seem like a very big change to me, but Tom felt otherwise. Agree, we should fix it. * Add missing description about WAL-logging. Small documentation change. Needs to be done I guess. No strong feelings. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: * Add the GUC parameter to specify the maximum number of log file segments held in pg_xlog directory to send to the standby server. Which is useful to avoid disk full in the primary. Not only to avoid disk full in primary but also to make it feasible to use streaming replication without archiving. It's a small change, we should do it. Do we have a working patch? No. * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine with me. * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck. It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be suppressed until some progress has been made. Any idea how to implement this? I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too hard. -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: * Add the GUC parameter to specify the maximum number of log file segments held in pg_xlog directory to send to the standby server. Which is useful to avoid disk full in the primary. Not only to avoid disk full in primary but also to make it feasible to use streaming replication without archiving. It's a small change, we should do it. Do we have a working patch? No. :-( * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine with me. I'll commit it tonight. * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck. It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be suppressed until some progress has been made. Any idea how to implement this? I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too hard. The tricky part, I believe, is that there's more than one message that can potentially be emitted, and you don't want ANY of them to repeat every 2 s, so some thought needs to be given to where to hook in the logic. ...Robert -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: I triaged the list of open items on the Streaming Replication wiki page. I propose that we drop the ones I've marked as Drop below, and move the remaining items to the main Open Items page for better visibility. By drop do you mean move to TODO? At least some of these issues should be addressed in 9.1 or later. Perhaps some can really be dropped, but it's not clear which. 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
Re: [HACKERS] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: * Fix things so that any such variables inherited from the server environment are intentionally *NOT* used for making SR connections. Drop. Besides, we have the same problem with dblink, and I don't recall anyone complaining. Yep, but I don't think that dblink has the same issue because it's often used to connect to another database on the same postgres instance, which seems proper method. Yes, dblink is a poor precedent to cite because self-connections are a sane behavior in its case. The problem is that walreceiver might wrongly connect to *its* server and get stuck because no WAL records arrive for ever. Since currently we don't allow the standby to accept the replication connection, the problem will not happen in 9.0, and ISTM we don't need to address it right now. So I agree to drop. Agreed, this can be put off until we support relay replication. I think it will be an issue then, however. 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
Re: [HACKERS] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: I triaged the list of open items on the Streaming Replication wiki page. I propose that we drop the ones I've marked as Drop below, and move the remaining items to the main Open Items page for better visibility. By drop do you mean move to TODO? At least some of these issues should be addressed in 9.1 or later. Perhaps some can really be dropped, but it's not clear which. Umm, yes, honestly speaking I hadn't even thought about that. I've added the ones that should be addressed in the future to the TODO list. I added a new subsection for standby server and streaming replication related items: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, April 6, 2010 19:29, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: [...] I've added the ones that should be addressed in the future to the TODO list. I added a new subsection for standby server and streaming replication related items: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Standby_server_mode I reported Assertion failure twophase.c a few times; see: http://search.postgresql.org/search?m=1q=Assertion+failure+twophase.cl=d=s= Btw, it has now also happened once without the postbio package installed - (which was unlikely to be the cause anyway, I think). I don't see it mentioned in the TODO, but maybe it's just deemed too elusive to be assigned a todo entry. Was the issue eventually found/solved? thanks, Erik Rijkers -- 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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 20:27 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: Was the issue eventually found/solved? We think so, but the event was not conclusively traceable. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode? Drop. Too big a change at this point. We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological. Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine with me. I'll commit it tonight. I don't see this on hackers. Have you posted it? I'd like to see what you do before it gets committed. Thanks. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.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] Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:09 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * Walsender and dblink are not interruptible on win32. - related thread I'd actually be happy to just leave it for 9.0, but it seems like consensus has been reached on how to fix it, and Fujii is working on a patch, so let's follow that through. That one is a must, for me. I would put relaying easily above any of the other stuff. That is a truly useful feature that we are very close to being able to have in this release. Adding things like quotes is not moving us forwards in any important sense. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
