回复：回复：Bug about drop index concurrently - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | 李杰(慎追) |
|---|---|
| Subject | 回复：回复：Bug about drop index concurrently |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | eb46bd15-6005-4ec4-9e71-85577a2237f9.adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: 回复：Bug about drop index concurrently (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: 回复：回复：Bug aboutdrop index concurrently
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
>
>I'm a bit confused. You shouldn't see any crashes and/or core files in
>this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, I assume you're running a
>regular build without asserts. Secondly, I had to add an extra assert to
>trigger the failure. So what core are you talking about?
>
>this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, I assume you're running a
>regular build without asserts. Secondly, I had to add an extra assert to
>trigger the failure. So what core are you talking about?
>
Sorry, I should explain it more clearly.
I saw the core file because I modified the postgres source code and added Assert to it.
>
>Also, it's not clear to me what do you mean by "bug in the standby" or
>no lock in the drop index concurrently. Can you explain?
>no lock in the drop index concurrently. Can you explain?
>
"bug in the standby" means that we built a master-slave instance, when we executed a large number of queries on the standby, we executed 'drop index concurrently' on the master so that get ‘error’ in the standby. Although it is not 100%, it will appear.
no lock in the drop index concurrently ::: I think this is because there are not enough advanced locks when executing ‘ drop index concurrently’.
>Hmm, so you observe the issue with regular queries, not just EXPLAIN
>ANALYZE?
>ANALYZE?
yeah, we have seen this error frequently.
>>Of course, we considered applying the method of waiting to detect the
>>query lock on the master to the standby, but worried about affecting
>>the standby application log delay, so we gave up that.
>>
>>query lock on the master to the standby, but worried about affecting
>>the standby application log delay, so we gave up that.
>>
>I don't understand? What method?
>
I analyzed this problem, I used to find out the cause of this problem, I also executed 'drop index concurrently' and ‘explain select * from xxx’ on the master, but the bug did not appear as expected.
So I went to analyze the source code. I found that there is such a mechanism on the master that when the 'drop index concurrently' is execute, it wait will every transaction that saw the old index state has finished. source code is as follows follow as:
WaitForLockers(heaplocktag, AccessExclusiveLock);
Therefore, I think that if this method is also available in standby, then the error will not appear. but I worried about affecting the standby application log delay, so we gave up that.
------------------------------------------------------------------发件人：Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>发送时间：2019年10月23日(星期三) 01:47收件人：李杰(慎追) <adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com>抄 送：pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>主 题：Re: 回复：Bug about drop index concurrentlyOn Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:36:04AM +0800, 李杰(慎追) wrote:
>Thanks for the quick reply. And sorry I haven’t got back to you sooner
>.
>
>I have seen this backtrace in the core file, and I also looked at the
>bug in the standby because there is no lock in the drop index
>concurrently.
>
I'm a bit confused. You shouldn't see any crashes and/or core files in
this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, I assume you're running a
regular build without asserts. Secondly, I had to add an extra assert to
trigger the failure. So what core are you talking about?
Also, it's not clear to me what do you mean by "bug in the standby" or
no lock in the drop index concurrently. Can you explain?
>However, when our business will perform a large number of queries in
>the standby, this problem will occur more frequently. So we are trying
>to solve this problem, and the solution we are currently dealing with
>is to ban it.
>
Hmm, so you observe the issue with regular queries, not just EXPLAIN
ANALYZE?
>Of course, we considered applying the method of waiting to detect the
>query lock on the master to the standby, but worried about affecting
>the standby application log delay, so we gave up that.
>
I don't understand? What method?
>If you have a better solution in the future, please push it to the new
>version, or email it, thank you very much.
>
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
pgsql-hackers by date: