Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: 'Simon Riggs' <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot
Date: 2013-01-09 08:58:24
Message-ID: 20130109085823.GA5759@awork2.anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > > On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila
> > <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The information that no transactions are currently running
> > allows
> > > > you
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > build a recovery snapshot, without that information the standby
> > > > won't
> > > > > > start answering queries. Now that doesn't matter if all
> > standbys
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > have built a snapshot, but the primary cannot know that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't we make sure that checkpoint operation doesn't happen for
> > below
> > > > conds.
> > > > > a. nothing has happened during or after last checkpoint
> > > > > OR
> > > > > b. nothing except snapshotstanby WAL has happened
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently it is done for point a.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Having to issue a checkpoint while ensuring transactions are
> > > > running
> > > > > > just to get a standby up doesn't seem like a good idea to me :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon:
> > > > > > If you make the correct test, I'd be more inclined to accept
> > the
> > > > premise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure, what exact you are expecting from test?
> > > > > The test is do any one operation on system and then keep the
> > system
> > > > idle.
> > > > > Now at each checkpoint interval, it logs WAL for SnapshotStandby.
> > > >
> > > > I can't really follow what you want to do here. The snapshot is
> > only
> > > > logged if a checkpoint is performed anyway?  As recovery starts at
> > (the
> > > > logical) checkpoint's location we need to log a snapshot exactly
> > > > there. If you want to avoid activity when the system is idle you
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > prevent checkpoints from occurring itself.
> > >
> > > Even if the checkpoint is scheduled, it doesn't perform actual
> > operation if
> > > there's nothing logged between
> > > current and previous checkpoint due to below check in
> > CreateCheckPoint()
> > > function.
> > > if (curInsert == ControlFile->checkPoint +
> > >                         MAXALIGN(SizeOfXLogRecord +
> > sizeof(CheckPoint)) &&
> > >                         ControlFile->checkPoint ==
> > > ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo)
> > >
> > > But if we set the wal_level as hot_standby, it will log snapshot, now
> > next
> > > time again when function CreateCheckPoint()
> > > will get called due to scheduled checkpoint, the above check will
> > fail and
> > > it will again log snapshot, so this will continue, even if the system
> > is
> > > totally idle.
> > > I understand that it doesn't cause any problem, but I think it is
> > better if
> > > the repeated log of snapshot in this scenario can be avoided.
> >
> > ISTM in that case you "just" need a way to cope with the additionally
> > logged record in the above piece of code. Not logging seems to be the
> > entirely wrong way to go at this.
>
> I think one of the ways code can be modified is as below:
>
> +		    /*size of running transactions log when there is no
> active transation*/
> +                if (!shutdown && XLogStandbyInfoActive())
> +                {
> +                        runningXactXLog =
> MAXALIGN(MinSizeOfXactRunningXacts) + SizeOfXLogRecord;
> +                }
>
> !                if (curInsert == ControlFile->checkPoint +
> !                        MAXALIGN(SizeOfXLogRecord + sizeof(CheckPoint)) &&
> !                        ControlFile->checkPoint ==
> ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo)
>
> !                if (curInsert == ControlFile->checkPoint +
> !                        MAXALIGN(SizeOfXLogRecord + sizeof(CheckPoint)) &&
> !                        ControlFile->checkPoint ==
> ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo + runningXactXLog)
>
> Second condition is checking the last checkpoint WAL position with the
> current one.
> Since  ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo holds the value before "running
> Xact" WAL was inserted
> and ControlFile->checkPoint holds the value after "running Xact" WAL got
> inserted, so if no new WAL was inserted apart from "running Xacts" and
> "Checkpoint" WAL, then this condition will be true.
>

I don't think thats safe, there could have been another record inserted
that happens to be MinSizeOfXactRunningXacts big and we would still skip
the checkpoint.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Amit kapilaDate: 2013-01-09 09:08:06
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2013-01-09 08:45:10
Subject: inconsistent behave of boolean based domains in XML functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group