Re: Connection slots reserved for replication

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:16 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Hello. Thank you for the new version.
>
> At Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:58:52 +0100, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAFh8B=kaX0uWdyZXn3xZPgRqhHrbiOWwFhWStdG0fvJ4is21iA@mail.gmail.com>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached rebased version patch to the current HEAD and created commit fest entry
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 13:43, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 20 September 2018 at 08:18, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Instaed, we can iterally "reserve" connection slots for the
> > > > specific use by providing ProcGlobal->walsenderFreeProcs. The
> > > > slots are never stolen for other usage. Allowing additional
> > > > walsenders comes after all the slots are filled to grab an
> > > > available "normal" slot, it works as the same as the current
> > > > behavior when walsender_reserved_connectsions = 0.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about this?
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable, please see the updated patch.
>
> InitializeMaxBackends()
>         MaxBackends = MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1 +
> -               max_worker_processes;
> +               max_worker_processes + replication_reserved_connections;
>
> This means walsender doesn't comsume a connection, which is
> different from the current behavior. We should reserve a part of
> MaxConnections for walsenders.  (in PostmasterMain,
> max_wal_senders is counted as a part of MaxConnections)

Yes. We can force replication_reserved_connections <= max_wal_senders
and then reserved connections for replication should be a part of
MaxConnections.

>
> +       if (am_walsender && replication_reserved_connections < max_wal_senders
> +                       && *procgloballist == NULL)
> +               procgloballist = &ProcGlobal->freeProcs;
>
> Currently exccesive number of walsenders are rejected in
> InitWalSenderSlot and emit the following error.
>
> >    ereport(FATAL,
> >        (errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS),
> >         errmsg("number of requested standby connections "
> >            "exceeds max_wal_senders (currently %d)",
> >            max_wal_senders)));
>
> With this patch, if max_wal_senders =
> replication_reserved_connections = 3 and the fourth walreceiver
> comes, we will get "FATAL: sorry, too many clients already"
> instead. It should be fixed.
>
> When r_r_conn = 2 and max_wal_senders = 3 and the three
> walsenders are active, in an exreme case where a new replication
> connection comes at the same time another is exiting, we could
> end up using two normal slots despite that one slot is vacant in
> reserved slots.

Doesn't the max_wal_senders prevent the case?

Wal senders can get connection if we have free procs more than
(MaxConnections - reserved for superusers). So I think for normal
users the connection must be refused if (MaxConnections - (reserved
for superuser and replication) > # of freeprocs) and for wal senders
the connection also must be refused if (MaxConnections - (reserved for
superuser) > # of freeprocs). I'm not sure we need such trick in
InitWalSenderSlot().

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATIONNTT Open Source Software Center