Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

On 2020-May-16, Andres Freund wrote:

> I, independent of this patch, added a few additional paths in which
> checkpointer's latch is reset, and I found a few shutdowns in regression
> tests to be extremely slow / timing out. The reason for that is that
> the only check for interrupts is at the top of the loop. So if
> checkpointer gets SIGUSR2 we don't see ShutdownRequestPending until we
> decide to do a checkpoint for other reasons.

Ah, yeah, this seems a genuine bug.

> I also suspect that it could have harmful consequences to not do a
> AbsorbSyncRequests() if something "ate" the set latch.

I traced through this when looking over the previous fix, and given that
checkpoint execution itself calls AbsorbSyncRequests frequently, I
don't think this one qualifies as a bug.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect this much code between a
> ResetLatch and WaitLatch to never reset a latch. So I think we need to
> make the coding more robust in face of that. Without having to duplicate
> the top and the bottom of the loop.

That makes sense to me.

> One way to do that would be to WaitLatch() call to much earlier, and
> only do a WaitLatch() if do_checkpoint is false. Roughly like in the
> attached.

Hm. I'd do "WaitLatch() / continue" in the "!do_checkpoint" block, and
put the checpkoint code not in the else block; seems easier to read to
me.

While we're here, can we change CreateCheckPoint to return true so
that we can do

ckpt_performed = do_restartpoint ? CreateRestartPoint(flags) : CreateCheckPoint(flags);
instead of the mess we have there now? (Also add a comment that
CreateCheckPoint must not return false, to avoid messing with the
schedule)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services