Message-ID: <4db099c8-4a52-3cc4-e970-14539a319466@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:00:01 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Content-Language: en-US
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>,
 Denis Laxalde <denis.laxalde@dalibo.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
 "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>,
 Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>,
 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Peter Eisentraut
 <peter@eisentraut.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
References: <202403281753.ku5k2jvaw5fo@alvherre.pgsql>
 <3643677.1711648979@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAGECzQRqxwcaePLd3MmpZ380CRiCrzPAwmGXsUY9jR5EWf5DLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240329221724.03@rfd.leadboat.com>
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240329221724.03@rfd.leadboat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4db099c8-4a52-3cc4-e970-14539a319466%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello hackers,

30.03.2024 01:17, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 09:17:55AM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 19:03, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Could we make this test bulletproof by using an injection point?
>>> If not, I remain of the opinion that we're better off without it.
>> Possibly, and if so, I agree that would be better than the currently
>> added test. But I honestly don't feel like spending the time on
>> creating such a test.
> The SQL test is more representative of real applications, and it's way simpler
> to understand.  In general, I prefer 6-line SQL tests that catch a problem 10%
> of the time over injection point tests that catch it 100% of the time.  For
> low detection rate to be exciting, it needs to be low enough to have a serious
> chance of all buildfarm members reporting green for the bad commit.  With ~115
> buildfarm members running in the last day, 0.1% detection rate would have been
> low enough to bother improving, but 4% would be high enough to call it good.

As a recent buildfarm failure on orlingo (which tests asan-enabled builds)
[1] shows, that test can still fail:
70/70 postgresql:postgres_fdw-running / postgres_fdw-running/regress               ERROR           278.67s exit status 1

@@ -2775,6 +2775,7 @@
  SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '10ms';
  select count(*) from ft1 CROSS JOIN ft2 CROSS JOIN ft4 CROSS JOIN ft5; -- this takes very long
  ERROR:  canceling statement due to statement timeout
+WARNING:  could not get result of cancel request due to timeout
  COMMIT;

(from the next run we can see normal duration:
"postgres_fdw-running/regress               OK                6.30s ")

I reproduced the failure with an asan-enabled build on a slowed-down VM
and as far as I can see, it's caused by the following condition in
ProcessInterrupts():
                 /*
                  * If we are reading a command from the client, just ignore the cancel
                  * request --- sending an extra error message won't accomplish
                  * anything.  Otherwise, go ahead and throw the error.
                  */
                 if (!DoingCommandRead)
                 {
                         LockErrorCleanup();
                         ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_QUERY_CANCELED),
                                          errmsg("canceling statement due to user request")));
                 }

I think this failure can be reproduced easily (without asan/slowing down)
with this modification:
@@ -4630,6 +4630,7 @@ PostgresMain(const char *dbname, const char *username)
              idle_session_timeout_enabled = false;
          }

+if (rand() % 10 == 0) pg_usleep(10000);
          /*
           * (5) disable async signal conditions again.
           *

Running this test in a loop (for ((i=1;i<=100;i++)); do \
echo "iteration $i"; make -s check -C contrib/postgres_fdw/ || break; \
done), I get:
...
iteration 56
# +++ regress check in contrib/postgres_fdw +++
# initializing database system by copying initdb template
# using temp instance on port 55312 with PID 991332
ok 1         - postgres_fdw                            20093 ms
1..1
# All 1 tests passed.
iteration 57
# +++ regress check in contrib/postgres_fdw +++
# initializing database system by copying initdb template
# using temp instance on port 55312 with PID 992152
not ok 1     - postgres_fdw                            62064 ms
1..1
...
--- .../contrib/postgres_fdw/expected/postgres_fdw.out 2024-06-22 02:52:42.991574907 +0000
+++ .../contrib/postgres_fdw/results/postgres_fdw.out 2024-06-22 14:43:43.949552927 +0000
@@ -2775,6 +2775,7 @@
  SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '10ms';
  select count(*) from ft1 CROSS JOIN ft2 CROSS JOIN ft4 CROSS JOIN ft5; -- this takes very long
  ERROR:  canceling statement due to statement timeout
+WARNING:  could not get result of cancel request due to timeout
  COMMIT;

I also came across another failure of the test:
@@ -2774,7 +2774,7 @@
  BEGIN;
  SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '10ms';
  select count(*) from ft1 CROSS JOIN ft2 CROSS JOIN ft4 CROSS JOIN ft5; -- this takes very long
-ERROR:  canceling statement due to statement timeout
+ERROR:  canceling statement due to user request
  COMMIT;

which is reproduced with a sleep added here:
@@ -1065,6 +1065,7 @@ exec_simple_query(const char *query_string)
       */
      parsetree_list = pg_parse_query(query_string);
+pg_usleep(11000);

[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=olingo&dt=2024-06-20%2009%3A52%3A04

Best regards,
Alexander