Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica/ proof of concept - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica/ proof of concept
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoDbSN=P1veZTdCuHbpZOzVtWH7V6Ddk354qmiAsUkrpDw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica/ proof of concept  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica/ proof of concept  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ivan Kartyshov
>> > <i.kartyshov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> >> Hello. I made some bugfixes and rewrite the patch.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately leave the state of the
>> > standby different from the state of the  master on the theory that it
>> > won't matter.  I feel like that's something that's likely to come back
>> > to bite us.
>>
>> I agree with Robert. What happen if we intentionally don't apply the
>> truncation WAL and switched over? If we insert a tuple on the new
>> master server to a block that has been truncated on the old master,
>> the WAL apply on the new standby will fail? I guess there are such
>> corner cases causing failures of WAL replay after switch-over.
>
>
> Yes, that looks dangerous.  One approach to cope that could be teaching heap
> redo function to handle such these situations.  But I expect this approach
> to be criticized for bad design.  And I understand fairness of this
> criticism.
>
> However, from user prospective of view, current behavior of
> hot_standby_feedback is just broken, because it both increases bloat and
> doesn't guarantee that read-only query on standby wouldn't be cancelled
> because of vacuum.  Therefore, we should be looking for solution: if one
> approach isn't good enough, then we should look for another approach.
>
> I can propose following alternative approach: teach read-only queries on hot
> standby to tolerate concurrent relation truncation.  Therefore, when
> non-existent heap page is accessed on hot standby, we can know that it was
> deleted by concurrent truncation and should be assumed to be empty.  Any
> thoughts?
>

You also meant that the applying WAL for AccessExclusiveLock is always
skipped on standby servers to allow scans to access the relation?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic result sets from procedures
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone have experience benchmarking very higheffective_io_concurrency on NVME's?