| From: | Dipesh Pandit <dipesh(dot)pandit(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful | 
| Date: | 2021-09-20 07:34:57 | 
| Message-ID: | CAN1g5_G9WYmMM=2rJ3JKDf9x2YUBBPP80FWJe6C=tNGqKjzKUg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
> 1. I've removed several calls to PgArchForceDirScan() in favor of
>     calling it at the top of pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop().  I believe
>     there is some disagreement about this change, but I don't think
>     we gain enough to justify the complexity.  The main reason we
>     exit pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop() should ordinarily be that we've
>     run out of files to archive, so incurring a directory scan the
>     next time it is called doesn't seem like it would normally be too
>     bad.  I'm sure there are exceptions (e.g., lots of .done files,
>     archive failures), but the patch is still not making things any
>     worse than they presently are for these cases.
Yes, I think when archiver is lagging behind then a call to force
directory scan at the top of pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop() does not
have any impact. This may result into a directory scan in next cycle
only when the archiver is ahead or in sync but in that case also a
directory scan may not incur too much cost since the archiver is
ahead.I agree that we can remove the separate calls to force a
directory scan in failure scenarios with a single call at the top of
PgArchForceDirScan().
> 2. I removed all the logic that attempted to catch out-of-order
>     .ready files.  Instead, XLogArchiveNotify() only forces a
>     directory scan for files other than regular WAL files, and we
>     depend on our periodic directory scans to pick up anything that's
>     been left behind.
> 3. I moved the logic that forces directory scans every once in a
>     while.  We were doing that in the checkpoint/restartpoint logic,
>     which, upon further thought, might not be the best idea.  The
>     checkpoint interval can vary widely, and IIRC we won't bother
>     creating checkpoints at all if database activity stops.  Instead,
>     I've added logic in pgarch_readyXlog() that forces a directory
>     scan if one hasn't happened in a few minutes.
> 4. Finally, I've tried to ensure comments are clear and that the
>     logic is generally easy to reason about.
>
> What do you think?
I agree, If we force a periodic directory scan then we may not
require any special logic for handling scenarios where a .ready file
is created out of order in XLogArchiveNotify(). We need to force a
directory scan only in case of a non-regular WAL file in
XLogArchiveNotify().
Overall I think the periodic directory scan simplifies the patch and
makes sure that any missing file gets archived within a few mins.
Thanks,
Dipesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2021-09-20 08:47:02 | Re: psql: \dl+ to list large objects privileges | 
| Previous Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2021-09-20 06:33:18 | Re: Release 14 Schedule |