At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:16:40 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAHGQGwHvzV2J0QodA8x1xCx3CbaBmJTveQeoLFzX8hq5G25jEA@mail.gmail.com>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > If you shut down a primary server, a standby that is streaming from it says54:
> >
> > LOG: replication terminated by primary server
> > DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1 at 0/14F4B68.
> > FATAL: could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no COPY in progress
> >
> > Isn't that FATAL ereport a bug?
>
> ISTM that the cause is that walsender exits and replication connection is
> closed just after "COPY 0" is sent. That is, then after receiving "COPY 0",
> walreceiver tries to send an end-of-copy message to the primary, but fails
> because the connection has been already closed.
Though the message is followed by repetitions of other FATAL
messages, the message above itself seems a bit alarming.
> > How is clean server shutdown supposed to work?
>
> One option is to make walsender wait for end-of-copy message from walreceiver
> before it closes the connection and exits, after sending "COPY 0" message.
> But one question is; how should walsender behave when walreceiver gets stuck
> and cannot reply an end-of-copy message to walsender? Probably we need
> the timeout (maybe we can use wal_sender_timeout here but not sure yet
> if it's appropriate or not).
-1. It is totally useless other than to avoid the FATAL message.
> Another option is to prevent walreceiver from sending an end-of-copy message.
> If "COPY 0" always means the exit of walsender and the termination of
> the connection, there seems to be no need to send back an end-of-copy message.
> I've not checked yet how this interferes with other replication logics, though.
Looking into walsender.c, walsender thinks "COPY 0" is a signal
of its death coming just after, that is, proc_exit(0).
On the other hand the comment at the beginning of walreceiver.c
says that,
* If the primary server ends streaming, but doesn't disconnect, walreceiver* goes into "waiting" mode, and waits for
thestartup process to give new* instructions. The startup process will treat that the same as* disconnection, and will
rescanthe archive/pg_xlog directory. But when the* startup process wants to try streaming replication again, it will
just*nudge the existing walreceiver process that's waiting, instead of launching* a new one.
If we assume this is an useful behavior and want to keep it, a
termination after an end of XLOG streaming is just the same with
that for psql.
| FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command
| server closed the connection unexpectedly
| This probably means the server terminated abnormally
| before or while processing the request.
Or, we should provide another command to inform a termination.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
