|From:||Jonathon Nelson <jdnelson(at)dyn(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
We think we have discovered a bug in the physical replication slots
functionality in PostgreSQL 9.5.
We've seen the behavior across Operating Systems (CentOS-7 and openSUSE
LEAP 42.1), filesystems (ext4 and xfs), and versions (9.5.3 and 9.5.4). All
were on x86_64.
We notice that if we stop and then re-start the *standby*, upon restart it
will - sometimes - request a WAL file that the master no longer has.
First, the postgresql configuration differs only minimally from the stock
Assume wal_keep_segments = 0.
Assume the use of physical replication slots.
Assume one master, one standby.
Lastly, we have observed the behavior "in the wild" at least twice and in
the lab a dozen or so times.
EXAMPLE #1 (logs are from the replica):
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: creating and filling new WAL file
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: done creating and filling new WAL file
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: sending write 6/8B000000 flush 6/8A000000
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: sending write 6/8B000000 flush 6/8B000000
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: postmaster received signal 2
user=,db=,app=,client= LOG: received fast shutdown request
user=,db=,app=,client= LOG: aborting any active transactions
And, upon restart:
user=,db=,app=,client= LOG: restartpoint starting: xlog
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: updated min recovery point to 6/67002390 on
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: performing replication slot checkpoint
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: updated min recovery point to 6/671768C0 on
user=,db=,app=,client= CONTEXT: writing block 589 of relation
user=,db=,app=,client= LOG: invalid magic number 0000 in log segment
00000001000000060000008B, offset 0
user=,db=,app=,client= DEBUG: switched WAL source from archive to stream
user=,db=,app=,client= LOG: started streaming WAL from primary at
6/8A000000 on timeline 1
user=,db=,app=,client= FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream:
ERROR: requested WAL segment 00000001000000060000008A has already been
A physical analysis shows that the WAL file 00000001000000060000008B is
100% zeroes (ASCII NUL).
The results of querying pg_replication_slots shows a restart_lsn that
Pg_controldata shows values like:
Minimum recovery ending location: 6/8Axxxxxx
How can the master show a position that is greater than the minimum
recovery ending location?
Minimum recovery ending location: 19DD/73FFFFE0
Log segment 00000001000019DD00000073 was not available.
The restart LSN was 19DD/74000000.
The last few lines from pg_xlogdump 00000001000019DD00000073:
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 2/ 64, tx: 77257, lsn:
19DD/73FFFF60, prev 19DD/73FFFF20, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 132, blkref #0:
rel 1663/16403/150017028 blk 1832
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 2/ 64, tx: 77257, lsn:
19DD/73FFFFA0, prev 19DD/73FFFF60, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 206, blkref #0:
rel 1663/16403/150017028 blk 11709
If I'm understanding this properly, (0x73FFFFA0 - 0x73000000) is the first
byte of the last record in this file, and the record length is 64 bytes
which places the first byte of the next record at: 16777184 (0xffffe0)
(logical position 0x73ffffe0: this jives with pg_controldata).
However, there are only 32 bytes of file left:
0x73FFFFA0 - 0x73000000 + 64 -=> 16777184
16777216 - 16777184 -=> 32
Which means that the next record is in the WAL file
A possible theory:
Let us assume PG has applied 100% of the data in a given WAL file, and
let’s assume (as in this case) that the WAL file is
00000001000019DD00000073. When it starts up again, it uses the control
data to start and say “The next record is at 19DD/0x73ffffe0" which it
truncates to 0x73000000. However, PG has *also* already told the master
that is has fully received, written, and flushed all of the data for that
WAL file, so the master has 0x74000000 as the start position (and has
consequently removed the WAL file for 0x73). The relationship between
pg_controldata and pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn seem to be very
slightly (but importantly) at odds.
Could it be this part of the code?
From src/backend/replication/walreceiverfuncs.c in RequestXLogStreaming (as
236 * We always start at the beginning of the segment. That prevents a
237 * segment (i.e., with no records in the first half of a segment)
238 * being created by XLOG streaming, which might cause trouble later
239 * the segment is e.g archived.
241 if (recptr % XLogSegSize != 0)
242 recptr -= recptr % XLogSegSize;
We start up with 19DD/0x73ffffe0 (but there would not be enough room in
that segment for any more records, so logically we'd have to go to
19DD/0x74000000). When we start WAL receiving, we truncate 0x73ffffe0 to
0x73000000, which the master has already removed (and - technically - we
don't actually need?).
Dyn / Principal Software Engineer
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2016-11-29 04:24:52||Re: Re: BUG #13755: pgwin32_is_service not checking if SECURITY_SERVICE_SID is disabled|
|Previous Message||nikolay.nikitin||2016-11-28 18:21:13||BUG #14438: Wrong row count in the join plan with unique index scan|
|Next Message||Jim Nasby||2016-11-28 19:40:53||Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages?|
|Previous Message||Nico Williams||2016-11-28 19:23:43||Re: Tackling JsonPath support|