Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, TipTop Labs <office(at)tiptop-labs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
Date: 2018-04-03 02:41:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 07:27:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that a saner design would involve not truncating any particular
> target file until we first get some data to write to it. Christian's
> original patch shown at
> seems to be headed in that direction, in that it forces ordering of the
> data fetch (which is likely a good idea anyway to ensure locality of
> reference) and then performs the truncation when we get the first chunk
> of data for a file.

Please note that Christopher's patch is awkwardly making the difference
between a configuration file and a relation file by abusing of chunkoff.
It also blows up on the test t/ included in some of my
previous patches.

> Michael's proposal to have separate error handling for data and config
> files is not bad in itself, and it does improve the behavior for one
> foreseeable trouble case. But I think we need the other thing as well,
> or some variant of it, before we can regard pg_rewind as anything except
> a chainsaw with the safety catch missing.

I think that I agree with your proposal to delay the file truncation up
to the moment where the first chunk for a file is received, as well as I
agree to the fact that enforcing the ordering of the files would give a
more efficient work base. However, it seems to me that both concepts
should be included to get a complete patch. In short, a complete patch
could do in its most complex shape:
1) Ordering of the data fetched by libpq.
2) Truncation of files a first chunk is received only if it is a
configuration file.
3) Discard any data related to files that cannot be opened:
3-1) If the file worked on is a relation file, we have a hard failure.
3-2) If the file worked on is a configuration file, then a warning is
issued and we move on to the next file. This fixes the case of
read-only files without being user-intrusive.

In the case of 3-2) having a warning instead of a failure is subject to
discussion though. Perhaps we could live with a simple failure, but
that's rather user-unfriendly, still we could document the limitation
and tell users to not put read-only files on the target which is also
present on the source.

At the same time pg_rewind considers in my patch things like FSM and VM
files as configuration files, which you want to truncate out of the way
and fully copy, but also want to fail hard if they cannot be written to!

So at the end a failure for everything may make the most sense, if we
document that people don't put read-only files in the target's data
folder which can cause failures.

Note also that if we use isRelDataFile() in receiveFileChunks() it is
possible to decide if a file needs to be truncated when receiving its
first chunk, so it is possible to drop completely the concept of file
type as well. This would make the patch even more simple, and there is
no need to rely on other weird tweaks like chunkoff or such.

The ordering of the items when doing a local copy is not mandatory as
files are processed one by one, still I think that it could be more
solid to reuse isRelDataFile() in rewind_copy_file_range() and drop the
"trunc" argument.


In response to


Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-04-03 03:39:20 Re: BUG #15141: Faulty ISO 8601 parsing
Previous Message defanor 2018-04-03 01:44:09 Re: BUG #15141: Faulty ISO 8601 parsing

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-04-03 02:49:25 Re: Diagonal storage model
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-04-03 02:40:12 Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11