public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 02:53:49 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)

Hi,

while working on logical decoding of sequences, I ran into an issue with 
nextval() in a transaction that rolls back, described in [1]. But after 
thinking about it a bit more (and chatting with Petr Jelinek), I think 
this issue affects physical sync replication too.

Imagine you have a primary <-> sync_replica cluster, and you do this:

   CREATE SEQUENCE s;

   -- shutdown the sync replica

   BEGIN;
   SELECT nextval('s') FROM generate_series(1,50);
   ROLLBACK;

   BEGIN;
   SELECT nextval('s');
   COMMIT;

The natural expectation would be the COMMIT gets stuck, waiting for the 
sync replica (which is not running), right? But it does not.

The problem is exactly the same as in [1] - the aborted transaction 
generated WAL, but RecordTransactionAbort() ignores that and does not 
update LogwrtResult.Write, with the reasoning that aborted transactions 
do not matter. But sequences violate that, because we only write WAL 
once every 32 increments, so the following nextval() gets "committed" 
without waiting for the replica (because it did not produce WAL).

I'm not sure this is a clear data corruption bug, but it surely walks 
and quacks like one. My proposal is to fix this by tracking the lsn of 
the last LSN for a sequence increment, and then check that LSN in 
RecordTransactionCommit() before calling XLogFlush().


regards


[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ae3cab67-c31e-b527-dd73-08f196999ad4%40enterprisedb.com

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

view thread (78+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox