Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
On 10/08/2014 10:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <
> jgdr@dalibo.com> wrote:
>
>> We kept the WAL files and log files for further analysis. How can we help
>> regarding this issue?
>>
>
> Commit c2f79ba has added as assumption that the WAL receiver should always
> enforce the create of .done files when WAL files are done being streamed
> (XLogWalRcvWrite and WalReceiverMain) or archived
> (KeepFileRestoredFromArchive). Then using this assumption 1bd42cd has
> changed a bit RemoveOldXlogFiles, removing a check looking if the node is
> in recovery. Now, based on the information given here yes it happens that
> there are still cases where .done file creation is not correctly done,
> leading to those extra files. Even by looking at the code, I am not
> directly seeing any code paths where an extra call to XLogArchiveForceDone
> would be needed on the WAL receiver side but... Something like the patch
> attached (which is clearly a band-aid) may help though as it would make
> files to be removed even if they are not marked as .done for a node in
> recovery. And this is consistent with the pre-1bd42cd.


There are two mysteries here:

1. Where do the FF files come from? In 9.2, FF-segments are not supposed 
to created, ever.

Since this only happens with streaming replication, the FF segments are 
probably being created by walreceiver. XLogWalRcvWrite is the function 
that opens the file. I don't see anything obviously wrong there. 
XLogWalRcvWrite opens the file corresponding the start position in the 
message received from the master. There is no check that the start 
position is valid, though; if the master sends a start position in the 
FF segment, walreceiver will merrily write it. So the problem could be 
in the walsender side. However, I don't see anything wrong there either.

I think we should add a check in walreceiver, to throw an error if the 
master sends an invalid WAL pointer, pointing to an FF segment.


2. Why are the .done files sometimes not being created?

I may have an explanation for that. Walreceiver creates a .done file 
when it closes an old segment and opens a new one. However, it does this 
only when it's about to start writing to the new segment, and still has 
the old segment open. If you stream the FE segment fully, but drop 
replication connection at exactly that point, the .done file is not 
created. That might sound unlikely, but it's actually pretty easy to 
trigger. Just do "select pg_switch_xlog()" in the master, followed by 
"pg_ctl stop -m i" and a restart.

The creation of the .done files seems quite unreliable anyway. If only a 
portion of a segment is streamed, we don't write a .done file for it, so 
we still have the original problem that we will try to archive the 
segment after failover, even though the master might already have 
archived it.

I looked again at the thread where this was discussed: 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHGQGwHVYqbX=A+zo+AvFbVHLGoypO9G_QDKbabeXgXBVGd05g@mail.gmail.com. 
I believe the idea was that the server that generates a WAL segment is 
always responsible for archiving it. A standby should never attempt to 
archive a WAL segment that was restored from the archive, or streamed 
from the master.

In that thread, it was not discussed what should happen to WAL files 
that an admin manually copies into pg_xlog of the standby. Should the 
standby archive them? I don't think so - the admin should copy them 
manually to the archive too, if he wants them archived. It's a good and 
simple rule that the server that generates the WAL, archives the WAL.

Instead of creating any .done files during recovery, we could scan 
pg_xlog at promotion, and create a .done file for every WAL segment 
that's present at that point. That would be more robust. And then apply 
your patch, to recycle old segments during archive recovery, ignoring 
.done files.

- Heikki




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Marti Raudsepp
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Следующее
От: Anssi Kääriäinen
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Promise index tuples for UPSERT