Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call
Date
Msg-id 20230425001623.im5uquriqlk4ayy6@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Re: could not extend file "base/5/3501" with FileFallocate(): Interrupted system call  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2023-04-24 15:32:25 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-24 10:53:35 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > I'm often seeing PG16 builds erroring out in the pgbench tests:
> > I don't think the disk is full since it's always hitting that same
> > spot, on some of the builds:
> 
> Yea, the EINTR pretty clearly indicates that it's not really out-of-space.

FWIW, I tried to reproduce this, without success - not too surprising, I
assume it's rather timing dependent.


> We obviously can add a retry loop to FileFallocate(), similar to what's
> already present e.g. in FileRead(). But I wonder if we shouldn't go a bit
> further, and do it for all the fd.c routines where it's remotely plausible
> EINTR could be returned? It's a bit silly to add EINTR retries one-by-one to
> the functions.
> 
> 
> The following are documented to potentially return EINTR, without fd.c having
> code to retry:
> 
> - FileWriteback() / pg_flush_data()
> - FileSync() / pg_fsync()
> - FileFallocate()
> - FileTruncate()
> 
> With the first two there's the added complication that it's not entirely
> obvious whether it'd be better to handle this in File* or pg_*. I'd argue the
> latter is a bit more sensible?

A prototype of that approach is attached. I pushed the retry handling into the
pg_* routines where applicable.  I guess we could add pg_* routines for
FileFallocate(), FilePrewarm() etc as well, but I didn't do that here.

Christoph, could you verify this fixes your issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables