Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.
Date: 2016-11-18 18:16:22
Message-ID: 20161118181622.hklschaizwaxocl7@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-11-18 14:12:42 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> We had too-early WAL recycling during a test we had on a sync
> replication set. This is not a bug and a bit extreme case but is
> contrary to expectation on synchronous replication.

I don't think you can expect anything else.

> This is because sync replication doesn't wait non-commit WALs to
> be replicated. This situation is artificially caused with the
> first patch attached and the following steps.

You could get that situation even if we waited for syncrep. The
SyncRepWaitForLSN happens after delayChkpt is unset.

Additionally a syncrep connection could break for a a short while, and
you'd loose all guarantees anyway.

> - Is this situation required to be saved? This is caused by a
> large transaction, spans over two max_wal_size segments, or
> replication stall lasts for a chackepoint period.

I very strongly think not.

> - Is the measure acceptable? For the worst case, a master
> crashes from WAL space exhaustion. (But such large transaction
> won't/shouldn't exist?)

No, imo not.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2016-11-18 18:22:58 Re: JIT compiler for expressions
Previous Message David Steele 2016-11-18 17:38:14 Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress