Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Date
Msg-id 22856.1222650961@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> It does nothing AFAICS for the
>> problem that when restarting archive recovery from a restartpoint,
>> it's not clear when it is safe to start letting in backends.  You need
>> to get past the highest LSN that has made it out to disk, and there is
>> no good way to know what that is.

> AFAICS when we set minRecoveryLoc we *never* unset it. It's recorded in
> the controlfile, so whenever we restart we can see that it has been set
> previously and now we are beyond it.

Right ...

> So if we crash during recovery and
> then restart *after* we reached minRecoveryLoc then we resume in safe
> mode almost immediately.

Wrong.

What minRecoveryLoc is is an upper bound for the LSNs that might be
on-disk in the filesystem backup that an archive recovery starts from.
(Defined as such, it never changes during a restartpoint crash/restart.)
Once you pass that, the on-disk state as modified by any dirty buffers
inside the recovery process represents a consistent database state.
However, the on-disk state alone is not guaranteed consistent.  As you
flush some (not all) of your shared buffers you enter other
not-certainly-consistent on-disk states.  If we crash in such a state,
we know how to use the last restartpoint plus WAL replay to recover to
another state in which disk + dirty buffers are consistent.  However,
we reach such a state only when we have read WAL to beyond the highest
LSN that has reached disk --- and in recovery mode there is no clean
way to determine what that was.

Perhaps a solution is to make XLogFLush not be a no-op in recovery mode,
but have it scribble a highest-LSN somewhere on stable storage (maybe
scribble on pg_control itself, or maybe better someplace else).  I'm
not totally sure about that.  But I am sure that doing nothing will
be unreliable.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: Ad-hoc table type?
Next
From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Ad-hoc table type?