Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
 flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
 pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.

I believe so.  This was when not everyone was convinced.  Im fairly
certain Josh original patch is in the commit fest. So feel free to
drop this one.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
  flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
  pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.
 
 I believe so.  This was when not everyone was convinced.  Im fairly
 certain Josh original patch is in the commit fest. So feel free to
 drop this one.

I certainly don't see any version of Drake's patch in the July
commitfest:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest

I am thinking I will just remove the option and commit it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake

Alex Hunsaker wrote:

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.


I believe so.  This was when not everyone was convinced.  Im fairly
certain Josh original patch is in the commit fest. So feel free to
drop this one.



My patch has been committed.

Joshua D. Drake

--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
 Alex Hunsaker wrote:
  On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
  flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
  pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.
  
  I believe so.  This was when not everyone was convinced.  Im fairly
  certain Josh original patch is in the commit fest. So feel free to
  drop this one.
  
 
 My patch has been committed.

Ah, I see, but with no switch.  Thanks.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread daveg
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:30:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
 daveg wrote:
  On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
   Alex Hunsaker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Joshua D. Drake escribi?:

  That is an interesting idea. Something like:
  
   pg_restore -E SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET 
 MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G ?

  We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.


Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?

Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.
   
   I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
   flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
   pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.
  
  I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is
  taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions
  that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?
 
 I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch.  We
 would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was
 being used, but my point is that I see no value in having
 --use-statement-timeout.

lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
to whatever the new default is.

Do I need to adjust my patch or something?

-dg

-- 
David Gould   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  510 536 1443510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Tom Lane
daveg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
 taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
 to whatever the new default is.

reset to default is *surely* not the right behavior; resetting to the
setting that had been in effect might be a bit sane.  But the whole
design sounds pretty broken to start with.  The timer management code
already understands the concept of scheduling the interrupt for the
nearest of a couple of potentially active timeouts.  ISTM any patch
intended to add a feature like this ought to extend that logic rather
than hack around changing the values of global variables.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread daveg
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
 daveg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
  taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
  to whatever the new default is.
 
 reset to default is *surely* not the right behavior; resetting to the
 setting that had been in effect might be a bit sane.  But the whole
 design sounds pretty broken to start with.  The timer management code
 already understands the concept of scheduling the interrupt for the
 nearest of a couple of potentially active timeouts.  ISTM any patch
 intended to add a feature like this ought to extend that logic rather
 than hack around changing the values of global variables.

Are we talking about the same patch? Because I don't know what you are
refering to with timer management code and scheduling the interrupt in
the context of pg_dump.

-dg


-- 
David Gould   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  510 536 1443510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread Tom Lane
daveg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Are we talking about the same patch?

Maybe not --- I thought you were talking about a backend-side behavioral
change.

 Because I don't know what you are
 refering to with timer management code and scheduling the interrupt in
 the context of pg_dump.

I'm not sure that I see a good argument for making pg_dump deliberately
fail, if that's what you're proposing.  Maybe I'm just too old-school,
but there simply is not any other higher priority for a database than
safeguarding your data.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-24 Thread daveg
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
 daveg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Are we talking about the same patch?
 
 Maybe not --- I thought you were talking about a backend-side behavioral
 change.
 
  Because I don't know what you are
  refering to with timer management code and scheduling the interrupt in
  the context of pg_dump.
 
 I'm not sure that I see a good argument for making pg_dump deliberately
 fail, if that's what you're proposing.  Maybe I'm just too old-school,
 but there simply is not any other higher priority for a database than
 safeguarding your data.

We agree about that. The intent of my patch it to give the user a chance to
take corrective action in a case where pg_dump cannot be relied on to succeed.

The problem is that pg_dump can get blocked behind locks and then fail hours
later when the locks are released because some table it had not locked yet
changed. In the worst case:

  - no backup,
  - no notice until too late to restart the backup,
  - lost production due to other processes waiting on locks pg_dump holds.

So the intent of the patch is to optionally allow pg_dump to fail quickly
if it cannot get all the access share locks it needs. This gives the user
an opportunity to notice and retry in a timely way.

Please see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-05/msg00351.php
for the orginal patch and problem description.

A sample failure instance from a very heavy batch environment with a lot of
materialized views being maintained concurrently with pg_dump. DB size
is about 300 GB:

---
20080410 14:53:49 dumpdb c04_20080410_public: dumping c04 to 
/backups/c04_20080410_public
pg_dump: SQL command failed
pg_dump: Error message from server: ERROR:  cache lookup failed for index 
22619852
pg_dump: The command was: SELECT t.tableoid, t.oid, t.relname as indexname, 
pg_catalog.pg_get_indexdef(i.indexrelid) as indexdef, t.relnatts as indnkeys, 
i.indkey, i.indisclustered, c.contype, c.conname, c.tableoid as contableoid, 
c.oid as conoid, (SELECT spcname FROM pg_catalog.pg_tablespace s WHERE s.oid = 
t.reltablespace) as tablespace, array_to_string(t.reloptions, ', ') as options 
FROM pg_catalog.pg_index i JOIN pg_catalog.pg_class t ON (t.oid = i.indexrelid) 
LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_depend d ON (d.classid = t.tableoid AND d.objid = t.oid 
AND d.deptype = 'i') LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_constraint c ON (d.refclassid = 
c.tableoid AND d.refobjid = c.oid) WHERE i.indrelid = 
'22615005'::pg_catalog.oid ORDER BY indexname
20080411 06:12:17 dumpdb FATAL: c04_20080410_public: dump failed
---

Note that the dump started at 14:53, but did not fail until 06:12 the next day,
and it never got to the actual copy out phase. Meanwhile other DDL using
processes were hung on the access share locks aready held by pg_dump.

Regards

-dg

-- 
David Gould   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  510 536 1443510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
 
   That is an interesting idea. Something like:
   
pg_restore -E SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G ?
 
   We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
 
 
 Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
 by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?
 
 Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
 option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.

I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread daveg
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
 Alex Hunsaker wrote:
  On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
  
That is an interesting idea. Something like:

 pg_restore -E SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G ?
  
We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
  
  
  Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
  by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?
  
  Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
  option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.
 
 I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
 flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
 pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.

I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is
taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions
that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?

-dg

-- 
David Gould   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  510 536 1443510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
daveg wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
  Alex Hunsaker wrote:
   On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
   
 That is an interesting idea. Something like:
 
  pg_restore -E SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G 
?
   
 We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
   
   
   Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
   by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?
   
   Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
   option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.
  
  I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
  flag.  Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
  pg_dump/pg_restore?  I thought we were just going to disable it.
 
 I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is
 taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions
 that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?

I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch.  We
would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was
being used, but my point is that I see no value in having
--use-statement-timeout.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-04-16 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Joshua D. Drake escribió:

  That is an interesting idea. Something like:
  
   pg_restore -E SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G ?

  We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.


Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?

Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.

(sorry If I hijacked your patch Josh :) )


pg_dump_restore_statement_timeout.diff
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches