|From:||Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Speedup twophase transactions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 13 Apr 2016, at 01:04, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 15:47, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It looks to be the case... The PREPARE phase replayed after the
>>> standby is restarted in recovery creates a series of exclusive locks
>>> on the table created and those are not taken on HEAD. Once those are
>>> replayed the LOCK_STANDBY record is conflicting with it. In the case
>>> of the failure, the COMMIT PREPARED record cannot be fetched from
>>> master via the WAL stream so the relation never becomes visible.
>> Yep, it is. It is okay for prepared xact hold a locks for created/changed tables,
>> but code in standby_redo() was written in assumption that there are no prepared
>> xacts at the time of recovery. I’ll look closer at checkpointer code and will send
>> updated patch.
>> And thanks again.
> That's too late for 9.6 unfortunately, don't forget to add that in the next CF!
Fixed patch attached. There already was infrastructure to skip currently
held locks during replay of standby_redo() and I’ve extended that with check for
The reason why I’m still active on this thread is because I see real problems
in deploying 9.6 in current state. Let me stress my concern: current state of things
_WILL_BREAK_ async replication in case of substantial load of two phase
transactions on master. And a lot of J2EE apps falls into that category, as they
wrap most of their transactions in prepare/commit. Slave server just will always
increase it lag and will never catch up. It is possible to deal with that by switching
to synchronous replication or inserting triggers with pg_sleep on master, but it
doesn’t looks like normal behaviour of system.
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2016-04-13 14:32:58||Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <|
|Previous Message||Tatsuo Ishii||2016-04-13 14:30:24||Re: Incomplete startup packet errors|