Re: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure

From: Shubham Khanna <khannashubham1197(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Katsuragi Yuta <katsuragiy(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ted Yu <yuzhihong(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure
Date: 2023-12-11 08:41:36
Message-ID: CAHv8RjJvxDc2U3xUfvBwirw9Wk4oq8FVggv1VUhXNw6zQU8VZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:08 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dear Fujii-san, Tom,
>
> Thank you for giving a suggestion! PSA new version.
>
> > Regarding 0001 patch, on second thought, to me, it seems odd to expose
> > a function that doesn't have anything to directly do with PostgreSQL
> > as a libpq function. The function simply calls poll() on the socket
> > with POLLRDHUP if it is supported. While it is certainly convenient to
> > have this function, I'm not sure that it fits within the scope of libpq.
> > Thought?
>
> Current style is motivated by Onder [1] and later discussions. I thought it might
> be useful for other developers, but OK, I can remove changes on libpq modules.
> Horiguchi-san has suggested [2] that it might be overkill to use WaitEventSet()
> mechanism, so I kept using poll().
> I reused the same naming as previous version because they actually do something
> Like libpq, but better naming is very welcome.
>
> > Regarding 0002 patch, the behavior of postgres_fdw_verify_connection_states()
> > in regards to multiple connections using different user mappings seems
> > not well documented. The function seems to return false if either of
> > those connections has been closed.
>
> I did not considered the situation because I have not came up with the situation
> that only one of connections to the same foreign server is broken.
>
> > This behavior means that it's difficult to identify which connection
> > has been closed when there are multiple ones to the given server.
> > To make it easier to identify that, it could be helpful to extend
> > the postgres_fdw_verify_connection_states() function so that it accepts
> > a unique connection as an input instead of just the server name.
> > One suggestion is to extend the function so that it accepts
> > both the server name and the user name used for the connection,
> > and checks the specified connection. If only the server name is specified,
> > the function should check all connections to the server and return false
> > if any of them are closed. This would be helpful since there is typically
> > only one connection to the server in most cases.
>
> Just to confirm, your point "user name" means a local user, right?
> I made a patch for addressing them.
>
> > Additionally, it would be helpful to extend the postgres_fdw_get_connections()
> > function to also return the user name used for each connection,
> > as currently there is no straightforward way to identify it.
>
> Added, See 0003. IIUC there is no good way to extract user mapping from its OID, so I have
> added an function to do that and used it.
>
> > The function name "postgres_fdw_verify_connection_states" may seem
> > unnecessarily long to me. A simpler name like
> > "postgres_fdw_verify_connection" may be enough?
>
> Renamed.
>
> > The patch may not be ready for commit due to the review comments,
> > and with the feature freeze approaching in a few days,
> > it may not be possible to include this feature in v16.
>
> It is sad for me, but it is more important for PostgreSQL to add nicer codes.
> I changed status to "Needs review" again.

I am failing to apply the latest
Patch-"v39-0001-postgres_fdw-add-postgres_fdw_verify_connection-.patch"
for review. Please find the error I am facing:
D:\Project\Postgres>git am
D:\Project\Patch\v39-0001-postgres_fdw-add-postgres_fdw_verify_connection-.patch
error: patch failed: contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c:117
error: contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c: patch does not apply
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Applying: postgres_fdw: add postgres_fdw_verify_connection variants
Patch failed at 0001 postgres_fdw: add postgres_fdw_verify_connection variants
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

Please rebase and post an updated version of the Patch.

Thanks and Regards,
Shubham Khanna.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2023-12-11 08:50:51 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message jian he 2023-12-11 08:36:11 Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE