Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oItOg-0002lP-Na for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:01:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oItOf-0001Da-IC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:01:25 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oItOf-0001DQ-9G for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:01:25 +0000 Received: from mail.thelabyrinth.net ([45.56.70.56]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oItOc-0000M5-Dh for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:01:24 +0000 Received: from [172.20.20.20] (c-24-126-12-188.hsd1.wv.comcast.net [24.126.12.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dsteele) by mail.thelabyrinth.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65383546A1; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:01:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: Race between KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() and restartpoint Content-Language: en-US To: Noah Misch Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Kyotaro Horiguchi , Don Seiler References: <20210202151416.GB3304930@rfd.leadboat.com> <20210619203918.GA1189385@rfd.leadboat.com> <20220731061747.GA3692882@rfd.leadboat.com> <20220802143727.GA3796043@rfd.leadboat.com> From: David Steele In-Reply-To: <20220802143727.GA3796043@rfd.leadboat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 8/2/22 10:37, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:14:22AM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> On 7/31/22 02:17, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 07:21:29AM -0400, David Steele wrote: >>>> On 6/19/21 16:39, Noah Misch wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 07:14:16AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote: >>>>>> Recycling and preallocation are wasteful during archive recovery, because >>>>>> KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() unlinks every entry in its path. I propose to >>>>>> fix the race by adding an XLogCtl flag indicating which regime currently owns >>>>>> the right to add long-term pg_wal directory entries. In the archive recovery >>>>>> regime, the checkpointer will not preallocate and will unlink old segments >>>>>> instead of recycling them (like wal_recycle=off). XLogFileInit() will fail. >>>>> >>>>> Here's the implementation. Patches 1-4 suffice to stop the user-visible >>>>> ERROR. Patch 5 avoids a spurious LOG-level message and wasted filesystem >>>>> writes, and it provides some future-proofing. >>>>> >>>>> I was tempted to (but did not) just remove preallocation. Creating one file >>>>> per checkpoint seems tiny relative to the max_wal_size=1GB default, so I >>>>> expect it's hard to isolate any benefit. Under the old checkpoint_segments=3 >>>>> default, a preallocated segment covered a respectable third of the next >>>>> checkpoint. Before commit 63653f7 (2002), preallocation created more files. >>>> >>>> This also seems like it would fix the link issues we are seeing in [1]. >>>> >>>> I wonder if that would make it worth a back patch? >>> >>> Perhaps. It's sad to have multiple people deep-diving into something fixed on >>> HEAD. On the other hand, I'm not eager to spend risk-of-backpatch points on >>> this. One alternative would be adding an errhint like "This is known to >>> happen occasionally during archive recovery, where it is harmless." That has >>> an unpolished look, but it's low-risk and may avoid deep-dive efforts. >> >> I think in this case a HINT might be sufficient to at least keep people from >> wasting time tracking down a problem that has already been fixed. >> >> However, there is another issue [1] that might argue for a back patch if >> this patch (as I believe) would fix the issue. > >> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHJZqBDxWfcd53jm0bFttuqpK3jV2YKWx%3D4W7KxNB4zzt%2B%2BqFg%40mail.gmail.com > > That makes sense. Each iteration of the restartpoint recycle loop has a 1/N > chance of failing. Recovery adds >N files between restartpoints. Hence, the > WAL directory grows without bound. Is that roughly the theory in mind? Yes, though you have formulated it better than I had in my mind. Let's see if Don can confirm that he is seeing the "could not link file" messages. Regards, -David