On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe I've figured out why synchronous replication has such
> terrible performance with fsync=off: it has a nasty race condition.
> It may happen - if the standby responds very quickly - that the
> standby acks the commit record and awakens waiters before the
> committing backend actually begins to wait. There's no cross-check
> for this: the committing backend waits unconditionally, with no regard
> to whether the necessary ACK has already arrived. At this point we
> may be in for a very long wait: another ACK will be required to
> release waiters, and that may not be immediately forthcoming. I had
> thought that the next ACK (after at most wal_receiver_status_interval)
> would do the trick, but it appears to be even worse than that: by
> making the standby win the race, I was easily able to get the master
> to hang for over a minute, and it only got released when I committed
> another transaction. Had I been sufficiently patient, the next
> checkpoint probably would have done the trick.
>
> Of course, with fsync=off on the standby, it's much easier for the
> standby to win the race.
That seems very unlikely even with fsync=off in a real config where we
have network path to consider.
Your definition of a "nasty" race condition seems off.
I've added code for you.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
