basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe?
Date: 2015-01-20 15:28:19
Message-ID: 20150120152819.GC24381@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I'm analyzing a problem in which a customer had a pg_basebackup (from
standby) created 9.2 cluster that failed with "WAL contains references to
invalid pages". The failed record was a "xlog redo visible"
i.e. XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.

First I thought there might be another bug along the line of
17fa4c321cc. Looking at the code and the WAL that didn't seem to be the
case (man, I miss pg_xlogdump). Other, slightly older, standbys, didn't
seem to have any problems.

Logs show that a ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... was running when
the basebackup was started and finished *before* pg_basebackup finished.

movedb() basically works in these steps:
1) lock out users of the database
2) RequestCheckpoint(IMMEDIATE|WAIT)
3) DropDatabaseBuffers()
4) copydir()
5) XLogInsert(XLOG_DBASE_CREATE)
6) RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE)
7) rmtree(src_dbpath)
8) XLogInsert(XLOG_DBASE_DROP)
9) unlock database

If a basebackup starts while 4) is in progress and continues until 7)
happens I think a pretty wide race opens: The basebackup can end up with
a partial copy of the database in the old tablespace because the
rmtree(old_path) concurrently was in progress. Normally such races are
fixed during replay. But in this case, the replay of the
XLOG_DBASE_CREATE will just try to do a rmtree(new); copydiar(old, new);.
fixing nothing.

Besides making AD .. ST use sane WAL logging, which doesn't seem
backpatchable, I don't see what could be done against this except
somehow making basebackups fail if a AD .. ST is in progress. Which
doesn't look entirely trivial either.

This is a pretty nasty bug imo, because you're in no way guaranteed to
be noticed. If the problem happens only in some large, seldomly read,
table, the database might appear to be in a correct state.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-01-20 15:30:21 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2015-01-20 14:47:17 Re: New CF app deployment