Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2016-02-09 16:36:54
Message-ID: CAD21AoAiEeEM2NcQ6dQv7xf4pHi6FUZ0QYfb-0rwgrL9zcKEvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into
>> another patch in this same area, specifically Thomas Munro's causal
>> reads patch. I think a lot of people today are trying to use
>> synchronous replication to build load-balancing clusters and avoid the
>> problem where you write some data and then read back stale data from a
>> standby server. Of course, our current synchronous replication
>> facilities make no such guarantees - his patch does, and I think
>> that's pretty important. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this
>> too, of course.
>
> Yeah, sure. Each one of those patches is trying to solve a different
> problem where Postgres is deficient, here we'd like to be sure a
> commit WAL record is correctly flushed on multiple standbys, while the
> patch of Thomas is trying to ensure that there is no need to scan for
> the replay position of a standby using some GUC parameters and a
> validation/sanity layer in syncrep.c to do that. Surely the patch of
> this thread has got more attention than Thomas', and both of them have
> merits and try to address real problems. FWIW, the patch of Thomas is
> a topic that I find rather interesting, and I am planning to look at
> it as well, perhaps for next CF or even before that. We'll see how
> other things move on.

Attached first version dedicated language patch (document patch is not yet.)

This patch supports only 1-nest priority method, but this feature will
be expanded with adding quorum method or > 1 level nesting.
So this patch are implemented while being considered about its extensibility.
And I've implemented the new system view we discussed on this thread
but that feature is not included in this patch (because it's not
necessary yet now)

== Syntax ==
s_s_names can have two type syntaxes like follows,

1. s_s_names = 'node1, node2, node3'
2. s_s_names = '2[node1, node2, node3]'

#1 syntax is for backward compatibility, which implies the master
server wait for only 1 server.
#2 syntax is new syntax using dedicated language.

In above #2 setting, node1 standby has lowest priority and node3
standby has highest priority.
And master server will wait for COMMIT until at least 2 lowest
priority standbys send ACK to master.

== Memory Structure ==
Previously, master server has value of s_s_names as string, and used
it when master server determine standby priority.
This patch changed it so that master server has new memory structure
(called SyncGroupNode) in order to be able to handle multiple (and
nested in the future) standby nodes flexibly.
All information of SyncGroupNode are set during parsing s_s_names.

The memory structure is,

struct SyncGroupNode
{
/* Common information */
int type;
char *name;
SyncGroupNode *next; /* same group next name node */

/* For group ndoe */
int sync_method; /* priority */
int wait_num;
SyncGroupNode *member; /* member of its group */
bool (*SyncRepGetSyncedLsnsFn) (SyncGroupNode *group, XLogRecPtr *write_pos,
XLogRecPtr *flush_pos);
int (*SyncRepGetSyncStandbysFn) (SyncGroupNode *group, int *list);
};

SyncGroupNode can be different two types; name node, group node, and
have pointer to another name/group node in same group and list of
group members.
name node represents a synchronous standby.
group node represents a group of some name nodes, which can have list
of group member, and synchronous method, number of waiting node.
The list of members are linked with one-way list, and are located in
s_s_names definition order.
e.g. in case of above #2 setting, member list could be,

"main".member -> "node1".next -> "node2".next -> "node3".next -> NULL

The most top level node is always "main" group node. i.g., in this
version patch, only 1 group ("main" group) is created which has some
name nodes (not group node).
And group node has two functions pointer;

* SyncRepGetSyncedLsnsFn
This function decides group write/flush LSNs at that moment.
For example in case of priority method, the lowest LSNs of standbys
that are considered as synchronous should be selected.
If there are not synchronous standbys enough to decide LSNs then this
function return false.

* SyncRepGetSyncStandbysFn :
This function obtains array of walsnd positions of its standby members
that are considered as synchronous.

This implementation might not good in some reason, so please give me feedbacks.
And I will create new commitfest entry for this patch to CF5.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada

Attachment Content-Type Size
000_multi_sync_replication_v8.patch text/x-patch 27.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-02-09 16:44:24 Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2016-02-09 16:33:39 Re: proposal: function parse_ident