> On Apr 23, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Fair enough. But I'd still like an explanation of why only about
>>> half of the population is showing a failure here. Seems like every
>>> machine should be seeing the LSN as moving backwards in this test.
>>> So (a) why aren't they all failing, and (b) should we change the
>>> test to make sure every platform sees that happening?
>
>> Every machine sees the LSN moving backwards, but the code path that
>> had the assertion only reached if it decides to interpolate, which is
>> timing dependent: there needs to be a future sample in the lag
>> tracking buffer, which I guess is not the case in those runs.
>
> I'm dissatisfied with this explanation because if it's just timing,
> it doesn't seem very likely that some machines would reproduce the
> failure every single time while others never would. Maybe that can be
> blamed on kernel scheduler vagaries + different numbers of cores, but
> I can't escape the feeling that there's something here we've not
> fully understood.
>
> While chasing after this earlier today, I turned on some debug logging
> and noted that the standby's reports look like
>
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.206 EDT [34829] LOG: database system is ready to accept read only connections
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.212 EDT [34834] LOG: fetching timeline history file for timeline 2 from primary server
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.212 EDT [34834] LOG: started streaming WAL from primary at 0/3000000 on timeline 1
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.213 EDT [34834] LOG: sending write 0/3020000 flush 0/3028470 apply 0/3028470
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.214 EDT [34834] LOG: replication terminated by primary server
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.214 EDT [34834] DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1 at 0/3028470.
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.214 EDT [34834] LOG: sending write 0/3028470 flush 0/3028470 apply 0/3028470
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.214 EDT [34830] LOG: new target timeline is 2
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.214 EDT [34834] LOG: restarted WAL streaming at 0/3000000 on timeline 2
> 2017-04-23 15:46:46.228 EDT [34834] LOG: sending write 0/3020000 flush 0/3028470 apply 0/3028470
>
> So you're right that the standby's reported "write" position can go
> backward, but it seems pretty darn odd that the flush and apply
> positions didn't go backward too. Is there a bug there?
>
> I remain of the opinion that if we can't tell from the transmitted
> data whether a timeline switch has caused the position to go backward,
> then that's a protocol shortcoming that ought to be fixed.
The recent fix in 546c13e11b29a5408b9d6a6e3cca301380b47f7f has local variable overwriteOK
assigned but not used in twophase.c RecoverPreparedTransactions(void). I'm not sure if that's
future-proofing or an oversight. It seems to be used in other functions. Just FYI.
Mark Dilger