Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sravan Kumar
Subject Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"
Date
Msg-id CA+=Nbjhxyj54hs4TvdPmRsGfxWLQPagzPQysOGKMP5sMo6aLFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 4:57 PM Sravan Kumar <sravanvcybage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback.
>
> I'll be glad to help with the fix. Here's the patch for review.

Thanks. +1 for fixing this.
I would like to quote recent discussions on reducing the useless
wakeups or increasing the sleep/hibernation times in various processes
to reduce the power savings [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. With that in context,
does the archiver need to wake up every 60 sec at all when its latch
gets set (PgArchWakeup()) whenever the server switches to a new WAL
file? What happens if we get rid of PGARCH_AUTOWAKE_INTERVAL and rely
on its latch being set? If required, we can spread PgArchWakeup() to
more places, no?
 
I like the idea of not having to wake up intermittently and probably we should start a discussion about it.

I see the following comment in PgArchWakeup().

 /*
* We don't acquire ProcArrayLock here.  It's actually fine because
* procLatch isn't ever freed, so we just can potentially set the wrong
* process' (or no process') latch.  Even in that case the archiver will
* be relaunched shortly and will start archiving.
*/

While I do not fully understand the comment, it gives me an impression that
the SetLatch() done here is counting on the timeout to wake up the archiver
in some cases where the latch is wrongly set.

The proposed idea is a behaviour change while this thread intends to clean up some code that's
a result of the mentioned commit. So probably the proposed idea can be discussed as a separate thread.


Before even answering the above questions, I think we need to see if
there're any cases where a process can miss SetLatch() calls (I don't
have an answer for that).

Or do we want to stick to what the below comment says?

    /*
     * There shouldn't be anything for the archiver to do except to wait for a
     * signal ... however, the archiver exists to protect our data, so she
     * wakes up occasionally to allow herself to be proactive.
     */

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGJCbcv8AtujLw3kEO2wRB7Ffzo1fmwaGG-tQLuMOjf6qQ%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
commit cd4329d9393f84dce34f0bd2dd936adc8ffaa213
Author: Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
Date:   Tue Nov 29 11:28:08 2022 +1300

    Remove promote_trigger_file.

    Previously, an idle startup (recovery) process would wake up every 5
    seconds to have a chance to poll for promote_trigger_file, even if that
    GUC was not configured.  That promotion triggering mechanism was
    effectively superseded by pg_ctl promote and pg_promote() a long time
    ago.  There probably aren't many users left and it's very easy to change
    to the modern mechanisms, so we agreed to remove the feature.

    This is part of a campaign to reduce wakeups on idle systems.

[3] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/4035/
[4] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/4020/
[5]
commit 05a7be93558c614ab89c794cb1d301ea9ff33199
Author: Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
Date:   Tue Nov 8 20:36:36 2022 +1300

    Suppress useless wakeups in walreceiver.

    Instead of waking up 10 times per second to check for various timeout
    conditions, keep track of when we next have periodic work to do.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com


--
Thanks And Regards,
Sravan

Take life one day at a time.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding
Next
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure