Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Petr Jelinek
Тема Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes
Дата
Msg-id 7023017e-8b08-eaba-396c-80baf0a793c0@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] snapbuild woes  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 12/12/16 23:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-12 23:27:30 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 12/12/16 22:42, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2016-12-10 23:10:19 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> First one is outright bug, which has to do with how we track running
>>>> transactions. What snapbuild basically does while doing initial snapshot
>>>> is read the xl_running_xacts record, store the list of running txes and
>>>> then wait until they all finish. The problem with this is that
>>>> xl_running_xacts does not ensure that it only logs transactions that are
>>>> actually still running (to avoid locking PGPROC) so there might be xids
>>>> in xl_running_xacts that already committed before it was logged.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's actually true?  Notice how LogStandbySnapshot()
>>> only releases the lock *after* the LogCurrentRunningXacts() iff
>>> wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL.  So the explanation for the problem you
>>> observed must actually be a bit more complex :(
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, interesting, I did see the transaction commit in the WAL before the
>> xl_running_xacts that contained the xid as running. I only seen it on
>> production system though, didn't really manage to easily reproduce it
>> locally.
> 
> I suspect the reason for that is that RecordTransactionCommit() doesn't
> conflict with ProcArrayLock in the first place - only
> ProcArrayEndTransaction() does.  So they're still running in the PGPROC
> sense, just not the crash-recovery sense...
> 

That looks like reasonable explanation. BTW I realized my patch needs
bit more work, currently it will break the actual snapshot as it behaves
same as if the xl_running_xacts was empty which is not correct AFAICS.

Also if we did the approach suggested by my patch (ie using this
xmin/xmax comparison) I guess we wouldn't need to hold the lock for
extra time in wal_level logical anymore.

That is of course unless you think it should be approached from the
other side of the stream and try log correct xl_running_xacts.

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry on constraint violation
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)