Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload

On 2020/10/28 21:02, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> Sorry for late response.
>
>>>  > ... but what's the corresponding hazard here, exactly? It doesn't seem
>>>  > that there's any way in which the decision one process makes affects
>>>  > the decision the other process makes. There's still a race condition:
>>>  > it's possible for a walsender
>>>  Did you mean walreceiver here?
>>
>> It's logical walsender. restore_command is used within
>> logical_read_xlog_page() via XLogReadDetermineTimeline().
>
> Still have no idea what's the corresponding hazard here.
>
>>>  > to use the old restore_command after the
>>>  > startup process had already used the new one, or the other way around.
>>>  > However, it doesn't seem like that should confuse anything inside the
>>>  > server, and therefore I'm not sure we need to code around it.
>>>  I came up with following scenario. Let's say we have xlog files 1,2,3
>>>  in dir1 and files 4,5 in dir2. If startup process had only handled
>>>  files 1 and 2, before we switched restore_command from reading dir1 to
>>>  reading dir2, it will fail to find next file. IIUC, it will assume
>>>  that recovery is done, start server and walreceiver. The walreceiver
>>>  will fail as well. I don't know, how realistic is this case, though.
>>
>> That operation is somewhat bogus, if the server is not in standby
>> mode. In standby mode, startup waits for the next segment safely.
>
> I think it's pilot error. It is already possible to change anything in restore_command by wrapping real command into some script:
>
>> restore_command = '/bin/restore_wal.sh "%f" "%p"'
>
> And one can simple replace this file with something else with different logic. Or even by using some command with separate own settings. Real world example ( https://github.com/wal-g/wal-g ):
>
>> restore_command = '. /etc/wal-g/WALG_AWS_ENV; wal-g wal-fetch "%f" "%p"'
>
> And it is possible to change the real WAL source in ENV script without changing the restore_command. We can't track this, so I not see new issues here.
>
>>>  Sergey, could you please attach this thread to the upcoming CF, if
>>>  you're going to continue working on it.
>
> Sure, I created one: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2802/

+1 to mark restore_command as PGC_SIGHUP.

Currently when restore_command is not set, archive recovery fails
at the beginning. With the patch, how should we treat the case where
retore_command is reset to empty during archive recovery? We should
reject that change of restore_command?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION