Thread: SSI rw-conflicts and 2PC
Looking over the SSI 2PC code recently, I noticed that I overlooked a
case that could lead to non-serializable behavior after a crash.
When we PREPARE a serializable transaction, we store part of the
SERIALIZABLEXACT in the statefile (in addition to the list of SIREAD
locks). One of the pieces of information we record is whether the
transaction had any conflicts in or out. The problem is that that can
change if a new conflict occurs after the transaction has prepared.
Here's an example of the problem (based on the receipt-report test):
-- Setup
CREATE TABLE ctl (k text NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, deposit_date date NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO ctl VALUES ('receipt', DATE '2008-12-22');
CREATE TABLE receipt (receipt_no int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, deposit_date date NOT NULL, amount numeric(13,2));
-- T2
BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
INSERT INTO receipt VALUES (3, (SELECT deposit_date FROM ctl WHERE k = 'receipt'), 4.00);
PREPARE TRANSACTION 't2';
-- T3
BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
UPDATE ctl SET deposit_date = DATE '2008-12-23' WHERE k = 'receipt';
COMMIT;
-- T1
BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
SELECT * FROM ctl WHERE k = 'receipt';
SELECT * FROM receipt WHERE deposit_date = DATE '2008-12-22';
COMMIT;
Running this sequence of transactions normally, T1 will be rolled back
because of the pattern of conflicts T1 -> T2 -> T3, as we'd expect. This
should still be true even if we restart the database before executing
the last transaction -- but it's not. The problem is that, when T2
prepared, it had no conflicts, so we recorded that in the statefile.
The T2 -> T3 conflict happened later, so we didn't know about it during
recovery.
I discussed this a bit with Kevin and we agreed that this is important
to fix, since it's a false negative that violates serializability. The
question is how to fix it. There are a couple of options...
The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared transaction
found during recovery as though it had a conflict in and out. This is
roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly safe. But the downside is
that this is pretty restrictive: after recovery, we'd have to abort any
serializable transaction that tries to read anything that a prepared
transaction wrote, or modify anything that it read, until that
transaction is either committed or rolled back.
To do better than that, we want to know accurately whether the prepared
transaction had a conflict with a transaction that prepared or
committed before the crash. We could do this if we had a way to append
a record to the 2PC statefile of an already-prepared transaction --
then we'd just add a new record indicating the conflict. Of course, we
don't have a way to do that. It'd be tricky to add support for this,
since it has to be crash-safe, so the question is whether the improved
precision justifies the complexity it would require.
A third option is to observe that the only conflicts *in* that matter
from a recovered prepared transaction are from other prepared
transactions. So we could have prepared transactions include in their
statefile the xids of any prepared transactions they conflicted with
at prepare time, and match them up during recovery to reconstruct the
graph. This is a middle ground between the other two options. It
doesn't require modifying the statefile after prepare. However, conflicts
*out* to non-prepared transactions do matter, and this doesn't record
those, so we'd have to do the conservative thing -- which means that
after recovery, no one can read anything a prepared transaction wrote.
I thought I'd throw these options out there to see which ones people
think are reasonable (or any better ideas). Of the three, I think the
first (simplest) solution is the only one we could plausibly backpatch
to 9.1. But if the extra aborts after recovery seem too expensive, we
may want to consider one of the other options for future releases.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote:
> Looking over the SSI 2PC code recently, I noticed that I overlooked a
> case that could lead to non-serializable behavior after a crash.
>
> When we PREPARE a serializable transaction, we store part of the
> SERIALIZABLEXACT in the statefile (in addition to the list of SIREAD
> locks). One of the pieces of information we record is whether the
> transaction had any conflicts in or out. The problem is that that can
> change if a new conflict occurs after the transaction has prepared.
>
> Here's an example of the problem (based on the receipt-report test):
>
> -- Setup
> CREATE TABLE ctl (k text NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, deposit_date date NOT NULL);
> INSERT INTO ctl VALUES ('receipt', DATE '2008-12-22');
> CREATE TABLE receipt (receipt_no int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, deposit_date date NOT NULL, amount numeric(13,2));
>
> -- T2
> BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
> INSERT INTO receipt VALUES (3, (SELECT deposit_date FROM ctl WHERE k = 'receipt'), 4.00);
> PREPARE TRANSACTION 't2';
>
> -- T3
> BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
> UPDATE ctl SET deposit_date = DATE '2008-12-23' WHERE k = 'receipt';
> COMMIT;
>
> -- T1
> BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
> SELECT * FROM ctl WHERE k = 'receipt';
> SELECT * FROM receipt WHERE deposit_date = DATE '2008-12-22';
> COMMIT;
>
> Running this sequence of transactions normally, T1 will be rolled back
> because of the pattern of conflicts T1 -> T2 -> T3, as we'd expect. This
> should still be true even if we restart the database before executing
> the last transaction -- but it's not. The problem is that, when T2
> prepared, it had no conflicts, so we recorded that in the statefile.
> The T2 -> T3 conflict happened later, so we didn't know about it during
> recovery.
>
> I discussed this a bit with Kevin and we agreed that this is important
> to fix, since it's a false negative that violates serializability. The
> question is how to fix it. There are a couple of options...
>
> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared transaction
> found during recovery as though it had a conflict in and out. This
> is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly safe.But the
> downside is that this is pretty restrictive: after recovery, we'd
> have to abort any serializable transaction that tries to read
> anything that a prepared transaction wrote, or modify anything that
> it read, until that transaction is either committed or rolled back.
+1 for this solution.
> To do better than that, we want to know accurately whether the prepared
> transaction had a conflict with a transaction that prepared or
> committed before the crash. We could do this if we had a way to append
> a record to the 2PC statefile of an already-prepared transaction --
> then we'd just add a new record indicating the conflict. Of course, we
> don't have a way to do that. It'd be tricky to add support for this,
> since it has to be crash-safe, so the question is whether the improved
> precision justifies the complexity it would require.
Not worth the complexity, IMO.
Perhaps it would be simpler to add the extra information to the commit
records of the transactions that commit after the first transaction is
prepared. In the commit record, you would include a list of prepared
transactions that this transaction conflicted with. During recovery, you
would collect those lists in memory, and use them at the end of recovery
to flag the conflicts in prepared transactions that are still in
prepared state.
> A third option is to observe that the only conflicts *in* that
> matter from a recovered prepared transaction are from other prepared
> transactions. So we could have prepared transactions include in
> their statefile the xids of any prepared transactions they conflicted
> with at prepare time, and match them up during recovery to
> reconstruct the graph. This is a middle ground between the other two
> options. It doesn't require modifying the statefile after prepare.
> However, conflicts *out* to non-prepared transactions do matter, and
> this doesn't record those, so we'd have to do the conservative thing
> -- which means that after recovery, no one can read anything a
> prepared transaction wrote.
This would be fairly simple to do, but I'm not sure it's worth it,
either. The nasty thing about this is whole thing is precisely that
no-one can read anything the prepared transaction wrote, so making the
conflict-in bookkeeping more accurate doesn't seem very helpful.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote: >> Looking over the SSI 2PC code recently, I noticed that I >> overlooked a case that could lead to non-serializable behavior >> after a crash. >> >> When we PREPARE a serializable transaction, we store part of the >> SERIALIZABLEXACT in the statefile (in addition to the list of >> SIREAD locks). One of the pieces of information we record is >> whether the transaction had any conflicts in or out. The problem >> is that that can change if a new conflict occurs after the >> transaction has prepared. >> I discussed this a bit with Kevin and we agreed that this is >> important to fix, since it's a false negative that violates >> serializability. The question is how to fix it. There are a >> couple of options... >> >> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared >> transaction found during recovery as though it had a conflict in >> and out. This is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly >> safe. Dan, could you post such a patch, please? >> But the downside is that this is pretty restrictive: after >> recovery, we'd have to abort any serializable transaction that >> tries to read anything that a prepared transaction wrote, or >> modify anything that it read, until that transaction is either >> committed or rolled back. > > +1 for this solution. +1 for 9.2 and backpatching this; with the notion that we might be able to do better in some later release. (A TODO entry?) Should we add anything to the docs to warn people that if they crash with serializable prepared transactions pending, they will see this behavior until the prepared transactions are either committed or rolled back, either by the transaction manager or through manual intervention? > Perhaps it would be simpler to add the extra information to the > commit records of the transactions that commit after the first > transaction is prepared. In the commit record, you would include a > list of prepared transactions that this transaction conflicted > with. During recovery, you would collect those lists in memory, > and use them at the end of recovery to flag the conflicts in > prepared transactions that are still in prepared state. That indeed seems simpler. I'm not even sure that you would need to build a list and process it at the end; couldn't this be done as the commit records are replayed? Keep in mind that if the prepared transaction is not still pending, the information can be safely ignored, and if it *is* still pending you don't need to know *which* transaction it had the conflict with, because it will certainly have committed before the start of any post-recovery transaction. >> A third option is to observe that the only conflicts *in* that >> matter from a recovered prepared transaction are from other >> prepared transactions. So we could have prepared transactions >> include in their statefile the xids of any prepared transactions >> they conflicted with at prepare time, and match them up during >> recovery to reconstruct the graph. This is a middle ground >> between the other two options. It doesn't require modifying the >> statefile after prepare. However, conflicts *out* to non-prepared >> transactions do matter, and this doesn't record those, so we'd >> have to do the conservative thing -- which means that after >> recovery, no one can read anything a prepared transaction wrote. > > This would be fairly simple to do, but I'm not sure it's worth > it, either. The nasty thing about this is whole thing is precisely > that no-one can read anything the prepared transaction wrote, so > making the conflict-in bookkeeping more accurate doesn't seem very > helpful. Yeah, the benefit of this would be marginal without solving the other side of the problem; but if we're adding TODO entries for this area, perhaps they should be two separate entries, because either side of this could be done without touching the other. To summarize the above discussion, there is a bug that can be hit when using both SSI and 2PC if a crash or shutdown occurs while any serializable prepared transactions are pending and certain other conditions are met. The proposed quick fix would be to cause a serialization failure after recovery on any attempt by a serializable transaction to read data written by a serializable prepared transaction that was pending when a crash or shutdown occurred, and on any attempt by a serializable transaction to do a write which conflicts with a predicate lock acquired by such a prepared transaction. This would tend to be more than a little inconvenient until the prepared statements pending at crash or shutdown were all committed or rolled back. A more sophisticated solution is available that could be implemented in 9.3 or later. -Kevin
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > This would tend to be more than a little inconvenient until the > prepared statements pending at crash or shutdown were all > committed or rolled back. [sigh] Probably obvious, but to avoid confusion: s/prepared statements/prepared transactions/ -Kevin
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Perhaps it would be simpler to add the extra information to the commit > records of the transactions that commit after the first transaction is > prepared. In the commit record, you would include a list of prepared > transactions that this transaction conflicted with. During recovery, you > would collect those lists in memory, and use them at the end of recovery > to flag the conflicts in prepared transactions that are still in > prepared state. Yeah, doing it that way might be a better strategy if we wanted to go that route. I hadn't really considered it because I'm not that familiar with the xlog code (plus, the commit record already contains a variable length field, making it that much more difficult to add another). Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote: > >> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared > >> transaction found during recovery as though it had a conflict in > >> and out. This is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly > >> safe. > > Dan, could you post such a patch, please? Sure. See attached. > Should we add anything to the docs to warn people that if they crash > with serializable prepared transactions pending, they will see this > behavior until the prepared transactions are either committed or > rolled back, either by the transaction manager or through manual > intervention? Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might want to include the prepared transaction's gid in the errdetail. This semes like it'd be especially useful for prepared transactions. We can generally pick the transaction to abort to ensure the safe retry property -- if that transaction is immediately retried, it won't fail with the same conflict -- but we can't always guarantee that when prepared transactions are involved. And prepared transactions already have a convenient, user-visible ID we can report. Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
Attachment
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote: > > >> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared > > >> transaction found during recovery as though it had a conflict in > > >> and out. This is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly > > >> safe. +1. I don't even see this as much of a problem. Prepared transactions hanging around for arbitrary periods of time cause all kinds of problems already. Those using them need to be careful to resolve them quickly -- and if there's a crash involved, I think it's reasonable to say they should be resolved before continuing normal online operations. > Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to > serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might want > to include the prepared transaction's gid in the errdetail. I like this idea. Regards,Jeff Davis
On 23.02.2012 01:36, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>> On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote: >>>>> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared >>>>> transaction found during recovery as though it had a conflict in >>>>> and out. This is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly >>>>> safe. > > +1. > > I don't even see this as much of a problem. Prepared transactions > hanging around for arbitrary periods of time cause all kinds of problems > already. Those using them need to be careful to resolve them quickly -- > and if there's a crash involved, I think it's reasonable to say they > should be resolved before continuing normal online operations. Committed this now. (sorry for the delay) >> Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to >> serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might want >> to include the prepared transaction's gid in the errdetail. > > I like this idea. +1. Anyone want to put together a patch? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 23.02.2012 01:36, Jeff Davis wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote: >>> Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to >>> serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might >>> want to include the prepared transaction's gid in the errdetail. >> >> I like this idea. > > +1. Anyone want to put together a patch? Unless Dan claims it before I start the work, I'll do it. -Kevin