Re: More replication race conditions

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: More replication race conditions
Date: 2017-08-31 03:15:59
Message-ID: 20170831031559.GA4174309@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:32:49AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:09:00PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > On 24/08/17 19:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > sungazer just failed with
> > >
> > > pg_recvlogical exited with code '256', stdout '' and stderr 'pg_recvlogical: could not send replication command "START_REPLICATION SLOT "test_slot" LOGICAL 0/0 ("include-xids" '0', "skip-empty-xacts" '1')": ERROR: replication slot "test_slot" is active for PID 8913148
> > > pg_recvlogical: disconnected
> > > ' at /home/nm/farm/gcc64/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/test/recovery/../../../src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm line 1657.
> > >
> > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sungazer&dt=2017-08-24%2015%3A16%3A10
> > >
> > > Looks like we're still not there on preventing replication startup
> > > race conditions.
> >
> > Hmm, that looks like "by design" behavior. Slot acquiring will throw
> > error if the slot is already used by somebody else (slots use their own
> > locking mechanism that does not wait). In this case it seems the
> > walsender which was using slot for previous previous step didn't finish
> > releasing the slot by the time we start new command. We can work around
> > this by changing the test to wait perhaps.
>
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Simon,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-08-31 03:17:23 Re: path toward faster partition pruning
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2017-08-31 03:04:25 Re: Revisiting NAMEDATALEN