public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:26:59 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUrOB59QaE6=jF2cFAyv1MR7fzD8tr4YM5+OwEYG1SNzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALj2ACUrOB59QaE6=jF2cFAyv1MR7fzD8tr4YM5+OwEYG1SNzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2022-04-25 at 19:51 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> With synchronous replication typically all the transactions (txns)
> first locally get committed, then streamed to the sync standbys and
> the backend that generated the transaction will wait for ack from sync
> standbys. While waiting for ack, it may happen that the query or the
> txn gets canceled (QueryCancelPending is true) or the waiting backend
> is asked to exit (ProcDiePending is true). In either of these cases,
> the wait for ack gets canceled and leaves the txn in an inconsistent
> state [...]
> 
> Here's a proposal (mentioned previously by Satya [1]) to avoid the
> above problems:
> 1) Wait a configurable amount of time before canceling the sync
> replication by the backends i.e. delay processing of
> QueryCancelPending and ProcDiePending in Introduced a new timeout GUC
> synchronous_replication_naptime_before_cancel, when set, it will let
> the backends wait for the ack before canceling the synchronous
> replication so that the transaction can be available in sync standbys
> as well.
> 2) Wait for sync standbys to catch up upon restart after the crash or
> in the next txn after the old locally committed txn was canceled.

While this may mitigate the problem, I don't think it will deal with
all the cases which could cause a transaction to end up committed locally,
but not on the synchronous standby.  I think that only using the full
power of two-phase commit can make this bulletproof.

Is it worth adding additional complexity that is not a complete solution?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

view thread (36+ 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], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in 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