Re: PG13 fails to startup even though the current transaction is equal to the target transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:59:34 -0400, Sean Jezewski <sjezewski@salesforce.com> wrote in 
> We've noticed what may be a regression / bug in PG13.
> 
> I work at Heroku on the Data team, where we manage a fleet of Postgres
> services. This change has resulted in breaking the UX we offer to customers
> to manage their PG services. In particular, ‘forks’ and ‘point in time
> restores’ seem broken for PG13.
> 
> I believe it is related to this patch (
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/993736dd3f1713ec1f63fc3b653839f5%40lako.no
> )
> 
> For PG12, we expect:
> 
> -- We create a new Postgres service from archive and provide a
> recovery_target_xid
> -- PG replays the archive until the end of the archive is reached, and the
> current transaction == recovery_target_xid
> -- We measure the current transaction via the query SELECT
> pg_catalog.txid_snapshot_xmax(pg_catalog.txid_current_snapshot())
> -- Since the current transaction is exactly equal to the target
> transaction, we perform the promotion
> 
> For PG12, what we get:
> 
> -- This process completes smoothly, and the new postgres service is up and
> running
...
> For PG13, what we get:
> 
> -- On promotion we see the postgres process exit with the following log
> lines:
> 
> Mar 17 14:47:49 ip-10-0-146-54 25a9551c_65ec_4870_99e9_df69151984a0[7]:
> [18-1] sql_error_code = 00000 LOG: promote trigger file found:
> /etc/postgresql/wal-e.d/pull-env/STANDBY_OFF

This means someone other than the server itself has placed that file
to cause the promotion, perhaps before reaching the target point of
the recovery.  Even if that happened on PG12, server is uninterested
in the cause of the recovery stop and happily proceeds to
promotion. Thus, it is likely that the configured target xid actually
have not been reached at promotion at least in the PG13 case.

> Mar 17 14:47:49 ip-10-0-146-54 25a9551c_65ec_4870_99e9_df69151984a0[7]:
> [19-1] sql_error_code = 00000 LOG: redo done at 0/60527E0
...
> [21-1] sql_error_code = XX000 FATAL: recovery ended before configured
> recovery target was reached

In PG13, startup process complains like this even if recovery is
stopped by operational (or manual) promotion.  There might be other
behaviors but it seems to be reasonable to give priority on
configuration in postgresql.conf over on-the-fly operations like
promotion triggering.

> Even though the transaction IDs are identical. It seems like the end of the
> archive was reached (in fact the last transaction), and while we arrived at
> the correct transaction id, somehow PG decided it wasn’t done replaying?
> Perhaps because somehow the timestamps don’t line up? (Afaict we do not set
> the recovery_target_time, just the recovery_target_xid)
> 
> We have the `recovery_target_inclusive` set to true, which is the default.
> It really seems like the intent of that setting means that if the target
> equals the current transaction ID, recovery should be marked as complete.
> However we're seeing the opposite. While the current txn id == the target
> transaction id, the server exits. This is surprising, and doesn't line up
> with our expected behavior.

So at least the issue raised here doesn't seem relevant to how
xid-targetted PITR works.

> We have a workaround.
> 
> Right before promotion, if we increment the transaction of the leader
> database (the original PG service that we're forking from) by running
> `SELECT pg_catalog.txid_current()`, wait 120 seconds (double our archive
> timeout value to allow for the WAL segment to be written / uploaded /
> read), and wait until the current transaction is strictly greater than the
> target transaction, then the promotion seems to work fine every time for
> PG13. But this seems like an off by one error?

(Note that transaction ID are not always commited in the order of the
 integer values.)

I'm not sure.  The direct cause of the "issue" is a promotion trigger
that came before reaching recovery target.  That won't happen if the
"someone" doesn't do that.

> What do you think? Is this a bug? Is this expected? Is this user error on
> our end?

So in regard to the behavior that server stopps when targetted
recovery is immaturely stopped due to manual promotion, my opinion is
it's not a bug.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center