On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:14:22AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 7/31/22 02:17, Noah Misch wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 07:21:29AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> >>On 6/19/21 16:39, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 07:14:16AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>>>Recycling and preallocation are wasteful during archive recovery, because
> >>>>KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() unlinks every entry in its path. I propose to
> >>>>fix the race by adding an XLogCtl flag indicating which regime currently owns
> >>>>the right to add long-term pg_wal directory entries. In the archive recovery
> >>>>regime, the checkpointer will not preallocate and will unlink old segments
> >>>>instead of recycling them (like wal_recycle=off). XLogFileInit() will fail.
> >>>
> >>>Here's the implementation. Patches 1-4 suffice to stop the user-visible
> >>>ERROR. Patch 5 avoids a spurious LOG-level message and wasted filesystem
> >>>writes, and it provides some future-proofing.
> >>>
> >>>I was tempted to (but did not) just remove preallocation. Creating one file
> >>>per checkpoint seems tiny relative to the max_wal_size=1GB default, so I
> >>>expect it's hard to isolate any benefit. Under the old checkpoint_segments=3
> >>>default, a preallocated segment covered a respectable third of the next
> >>>checkpoint. Before commit 63653f7 (2002), preallocation created more files.
> >>
> >>This also seems like it would fix the link issues we are seeing in [1].
> >>
> >>I wonder if that would make it worth a back patch?
> >
> >Perhaps. It's sad to have multiple people deep-diving into something fixed on
> >HEAD. On the other hand, I'm not eager to spend risk-of-backpatch points on
> >this. One alternative would be adding an errhint like "This is known to
> >happen occasionally during archive recovery, where it is harmless." That has
> >an unpolished look, but it's low-risk and may avoid deep-dive efforts.
>
> I think in this case a HINT might be sufficient to at least keep people from
> wasting time tracking down a problem that has already been fixed.
>
> However, there is another issue [1] that might argue for a back patch if
> this patch (as I believe) would fix the issue.
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHJZqBDxWfcd53jm0bFttuqpK3jV2YKWx%3D4W7KxNB4zzt%2B%2BqFg%40mail.gmail.com
That makes sense. Each iteration of the restartpoint recycle loop has a 1/N
chance of failing. Recovery adds >N files between restartpoints. Hence, the
WAL directory grows without bound. Is that roughly the theory in mind?
