Re: last_archived_wal is not necessary the latest WAL file (was Re: pgsql: Add test case for an archive recovery corner case.) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 01:42:27AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> >>That was interesting: the order that WAL segments are archived when a
> >>standby is promoted is not fully deterministic.
> >
> >Oh, of course.
> >
> >>I find it a bit surprising that pg_stat_archiver.last_archived_wal is
> >>not necessarily the highest-numbered segment that was archived. I
> >>propose that we mention that in the docs, as in the attached patch.
> >
> >+1, but I think the description of that field in the pg-stat-archiver-view
> >table is also pretty misleading.  Maybe like
> >
> >-      Name of the last WAL file successfully archived
> >+      Name of the WAL file most recently successfully archived
> >
> >and similarly s/last/most recent/ for the other fields claiming
> >to be "last" something.
> 
> Makes sense, committed it that way.

This has seen two failures like the following:
#   Failed test 'check table contents after point-in-time recovery'
#   at t/028_pitr_timelines.pl line 167.
#          got: '2'
#     expected: '3'
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 3.

 sysname  │      snapshot       │ branch │                                            bfurl
               
 

──────────┼─────────────────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 sungazer │ 2022-03-08 16:24:46 │ HEAD   │
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sungazer&dt=2022-03-08%2016%3A24%3A46
 mylodon  │ 2022-05-18 00:14:19 │ HEAD   │
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mylodon&dt=2022-05-18%2000%3A14%3A19

For me, it reproduces consistently with a sleep just before the startup
process exits:

--- a/src/backend/postmaster/startup.c
+++ b/src/backend/postmaster/startup.c
@@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ StartupProcessMain(void)
      */
     StartupXLOG();
 
+    pg_usleep(3 * 1000 * 1000);
+
     /*
      * Exit normally. Exit code 0 tells postmaster that we completed recovery
      * successfully.

A normal/passing run gets this sequence of events:

    checkpointer: end-of-recovery checkpoint
    startup process: exits
    postmaster reaper(): "Startup succeeded, commence normal operations" = StartArchiver()
    test issues its INSERT
    shutdown checkpoint
    checkpointer: exits
    postmaster reaper(): signal_child(PgArchPID, SIGUSR2)
    archiver: completes archiving, exits

However, if the startup process exit is slow enough, you get:

    checkpointer: end-of-recovery checkpoint
    test issues its INSERT
    shutdown checkpoint
    checkpointer: exits
    postmaster reaper(): no PgArchPID, skip that part
    [no archiving]

One can adapt the test to the server behavior by having the test wait for the
archiver to start, as attached.  This is sufficient to make check-world pass
with the above sleep in place.  I think we should also modify the PostgresNode
archive_command to log a message.  That lack of logging was a obstacle
upthread (as seen in commit 3279cef) and again here.

An alternative would be to declare that the test is right and the server is
wrong.  The postmaster knows how to start the checkpointer if the checkpointer
is not running when the postmaster needs a shutdown checkpoint.  It could
start the archiver around that same area:

                /* Start the checkpointer if not running */
                if (CheckpointerPID == 0)
                    CheckpointerPID = StartCheckpointer();
                /* And tell it to shut down */
                if (CheckpointerPID != 0)
                {
                    signal_child(CheckpointerPID, SIGUSR2);
                    pmState = PM_SHUTDOWN;
                }

Any opinions between the change-test and change-server approaches?

The test is new in HEAD, but I get the same behavior in v14 and v13.  In v12,
node_pitr2 never exits pg_is_in_recovery().  v11 would need test code changes,
which I did not attempt.

Thanks,
nm