Thread: Feature: POSIX Shared memory support
On Mac OS X and other BSD's, the default System V shared memory limits are often very low and require adjustment for acceptable performance. Particularly, when Postgres is included as part of larger end-user friendly software products, these kernel settings are often difficult to change for 2 reasons: 1. The (arbitrarily) limited resources must be shared by all programs that use System V shared memory. For example on my Mac OS X computer, I have Postgres running a standalone database, but also as part of Apple Remote Desktop. Without manual adjustment, running both simultaneously causes one of them to fail. Correcting this in any robust way is challenging to automate for consumer-style (i.e. Mac) installers. 2. On these BSD's, this System V shared memory is wired down and cannot be swapped out for any reason. If Postgres is running as part of another software program or is a lower priority, other programs cannot use the potentially limited memory. This places the user or developer in a tricky position of having to minimize overall system impact, while permitting enough shared memory for Postgres to perform well. To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the POSIX calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing collision by using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). In principle, this should not have any significant affect on performance. Running PGBench on a few different load types gives very similar results (-3%/+1%), that aren't very statistically significant. Of course, on a un-tuned Mac OS X machine (where the original SysV version is limited to the default 4MB) the POSIX version outperforms significantly (+250%). Using the POSIX calls helps minimize the kernel side of the tuning, which is a big plus for integrated uses of Postgres, but also for other amateur installations (i.e. Fink). If this is appropriate for the distribution, it could become a 'contrib' add-on or it could be a autoconf custom build option until it reached greater maturity. Any thoughts? Suggestions? I would also appreciate any advice on more sophisticate ways to measure the performance impacts of a change like this. Thanks, Chris Marcellino Apple Computer, Inc. src/backend/port/posix_shmem.c =================================================================== / *----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- * * posix_shmem.c * Implement shared memory using POSIX facilities * * These routines represent a fairly thin layer on top of POSIX shared * memory functionality. * * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2006, PostgreSQL Global Development Group * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California * *----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- */ #include "postgres.h" #include <signal.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/file.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/mman.h> #ifdef HAVE_KERNEL_OS_H #include <kernel/OS.h> #endif #include "miscadmin.h" #include "storage/ipc.h" #include "storage/pg_shmem.h" #define IPCProtection (0600) /* access/modify by user only */ #define IPCNameLength 32 /* must be long enough to contain all possible format strings * see GenerateIPDName */ unsigned long UsedShmemSegID = 0; void *UsedShmemSegAddr = NULL; static void GenerateIPCName(int memKey, char *dest); static void *InternalIpcMemoryCreate(int memKey, Size size); static void IpcMemoryDetach(int status, Datum shmaddr); static void IpcMemoryDelete(int status, Datum memKey); static PGShmemHeader *PGSharedMemoryAttach(int key); /* * GenerateIPCName(key, dest) * * Generate a shared memory object key name using the argument key. * This uses the magic number and text to prevent collisions from other * apps. */ static void GenerateIPCName(int memKey, char *dest) { /* This must be 31 characters or less for portability (i.e. Mac OS X) */ sprintf(dest, "PostgreSQL.%lx.%lx", PGShmemMagic, memKey); } /* * InternalIpcMemoryCreate(memKey, size) * * Attempt to create a new shared memory segment with the specified key. * Will fail (return NULL) if such a segment already exists. If successful, * attach the segment to the current process and return its attached address. * On success, callbacks are registered with on_shmem_exit to detach and * delete the segment when on_shmem_exit is called. * * If we fail with a failure code other than collision-with-existing- segment, * print out an error and abort. Other types of errors are not recoverable. */ static void * InternalIpcMemoryCreate(int memKey, Size size) { int fd; void *memAddress; char keyName[IPCNameLength]; struct stat statbuf; GenerateIPCName(memKey, keyName); fd = shm_open(keyName, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, IPCProtection); if (fd < 0) { /* * Fail quietly if error indicates a collision with existing segment. * One would expect EEXIST, given that we said O_EXCL. */ if (errno == EEXIST || errno == EACCES) return NULL; /* * Else complain and abort */ ereport(FATAL, (errmsg("could not create shared memory segment: %m"), errdetail("Failed system call was shm_open(name=%s, oflag=%lu, mode=%lu).", keyName, (unsigned long) O_CREAT | O_EXCL, (unsigned long) IPCProtection), (errno == EMFILE) ? errhint("This error means that the process has reached its limit " "for open file descriptors.") : 0, (errno == ENOSPC) ? errhint("This error means the process has ran out of address " "space.") : 0)); } /* Register on-exit routine to delete the new segment */ on_shmem_exit(IpcMemoryDelete, Int32GetDatum(memKey)); /* Increase the size of the file descriptor to the desired length. * If this fails so will mmap since it can't map size bytes. */ fstat(fd, &statbuf); if (statbuf.st_size < size) ftruncate(fd, size); /* OK, should be able to attach to the segment */ memAddress = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); close(fd); if (memAddress == (void *) -1) elog(FATAL, "mmap(fd=%d) failed: %m", fd); /* Register on-exit routine to detach new segment before deleting */ on_shmem_exit(IpcMemoryDetach, PointerGetDatum(memAddress)); /* Record key and ID in lockfile for data directory. */ RecordSharedMemoryInLockFile((unsigned long) memKey, 0); return memAddress; } / ************************************************************************ ****/ /* IpcMemoryDetach(status, shmaddr) removes a shared memory segment */ /* from process' address space */ /* (called as an on_shmem_exit callback, hence funny argument list) */ / ************************************************************************ ****/ static void IpcMemoryDetach(int status, Datum shmaddr) { PGShmemHeader *hdr; hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) DatumGetPointer(shmaddr); if (munmap(DatumGetPointer(shmaddr), hdr->totalsize) < 0) elog(LOG, "munmap(%p, ...) failed: %m", DatumGetPointer(shmaddr)); } / ************************************************************************ ****/ /* IpcMemoryDelete(status, fd) deletes a shared memory segment */ /* (called as an on_shmem_exit callback, hence funny argument list) */ / ************************************************************************ ****/ static void IpcMemoryDelete(int status, Datum memKey) { char keyName[IPCNameLength]; GenerateIPCName(memKey, keyName); if (shm_unlink(keyName) < 0) elog(LOG, "shm_unlink(%s) failed: %m", keyName); } /* * PGSharedMemoryIsInUse * * Is a previously-existing shmem segment still existing and in use? * * The point of this exercise is to detect the case where a prior postmaster * crashed, but it left child backends that are still running. Therefore * we only care about shmem segments that are associated with the intended * DataDir. This is an important consideration since accidental matches of * shmem segment IDs are reasonably common. */ bool PGSharedMemoryIsInUse(unsigned long id1, unsigned long id2) { char keyName[IPCNameLength]; PGShmemHeader *hdr; int fd, isValidHeader; #ifndef WIN32 struct stat statbuf; #endif GenerateIPCName(id1, keyName); /* * We detect whether a shared memory segment is in use by seeing whether * it (a) exists and (b) has any processes are attached to it. */ fd = shm_open(keyName, O_RDWR, 0); if (fd < 0) { /* * ENOENT means the segment no longer exists. */ if (errno == ENOENT) return false; /* * EACCES implies that the segment belongs to some other userid, which * means it is not a Postgres shmem segment that is relevant to our * data directory. */ if (errno == EACCES) return false; /* * Otherwise, we had better assume that the segment is in use. */ return true; } /* * Try to attach to the segment and see if it matches our data directory. * This avoids fd-conflict problems on machines that are running * several postmasters under the same userid. On Windows, which doesn't * have useful inode numbers, we can't do this so we punt and assume there * is a conflict. */ #ifdef WIN32 close(fd); return true; #endif if (stat(DataDir, &statbuf) < 0) { close(fd); return true; /* if can't stat, be conservative */ } hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) mmap(NULL, sizeof(PGShmemHeader), PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); close(fd); if (hdr == (PGShmemHeader *) -1) return true; /* if can't attach, be conservative */ isValidHeader = hdr->magic != PGShmemMagic || hdr->device != statbuf.st_dev || hdr->inode != statbuf.st_ino; munmap((void *) hdr, sizeof(PGShmemHeader)); if (isValidHeader) { /* * It's either not a Postgres segment, or not one for my data * directory. In either case it poses no threat. */ munmap((void *) hdr, sizeof(PGShmemHeader)); return false; } /* Trouble --- looks a lot like there's still live backends */ return true; } /* * PGSharedMemoryCreate * * Create a shared memory segment of the given size and initialize its * standard header. Also, register an on_shmem_exit callback to release * the storage. * * Dead Postgres segments are recycled if found, but we do not fail upon * collision with non-Postgres shmem segments. The idea here is to detect and * re-use keys that may have been assigned by a crashed postmaster or backend. * * makePrivate means to always create a new segment, rather than attach to * or recycle any existing segment. * * The port number is passed for possible use as a key (for SysV, we use * it to generate the starting shmem key). In a standalone backend, * zero will be passed. */ PGShmemHeader * PGSharedMemoryCreate(Size size, bool makePrivate, int port) { int NextShmemSegID; void *memAddress; PGShmemHeader *hdr; char keyName[IPCNameLength]; #ifndef WIN32 struct stat statbuf; #endif /* Room for a header? */ Assert(size > MAXALIGN(sizeof(PGShmemHeader))); /* Make sure PGSharedMemoryAttach doesn't fail without need */ UsedShmemSegAddr = NULL; /* Loop till we find a free IPC key */ NextShmemSegID = port * 1000; for (NextShmemSegID++;; NextShmemSegID++) { /* Try to create new segment */ memAddress = InternalIpcMemoryCreate(NextShmemSegID, size); if (memAddress) break; /* successful create and attach */ /* Check shared memory and possibly remove and recreate */ if (makePrivate) /* a standalone backend shouldn't do this */ continue; if ((memAddress = PGSharedMemoryAttach(NextShmemSegID)) == NULL) continue; /* can't attach, not one of mine */ /* * If I am not the creator and it belongs to an extant process, * continue. */ hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) memAddress; if (hdr->creatorPID != getpid()) { if (kill(hdr->creatorPID, 0) == 0 || errno != ESRCH) { munmap(memAddress, hdr->totalsize); continue; /* segment belongs to a live process */ } } /* * The segment appears to be from a dead Postgres process, or from a * previous cycle of life in this same process. Zap it, if possible. * This probably shouldn't fail, but if it does, assume the segment * belongs to someone else after all, and continue quietly. */ GenerateIPCName(NextShmemSegID, keyName); munmap(memAddress, hdr->totalsize); if (shm_unlink(keyName) < 0) continue; /* * Now try again to create the segment. */ memAddress = InternalIpcMemoryCreate(NextShmemSegID, size); if (memAddress) break; /* successful create and attach */ /* * Can only get here if some other process managed to create the same * shmem key before we did. Let him have that one, loop around to try * next key. */ } /* * OK, we created a new segment. Mark it as created by this process. The * order of assignments here is critical so that another Postgres process * can't see the header as valid but belonging to an invalid PID! */ hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) memAddress; hdr->creatorPID = getpid(); hdr->magic = PGShmemMagic; #ifndef WIN32 /* Fill in the data directory ID info, too */ if (stat(DataDir, &statbuf) < 0) ereport(FATAL, (errcode_for_file_access(), errmsg("could not stat data directory \"%s\": %m", DataDir))); hdr->device = statbuf.st_dev; hdr->inode = statbuf.st_ino; #endif /* * Initialize space allocation status for segment. */ hdr->totalsize = size; hdr->freeoffset = MAXALIGN(sizeof(PGShmemHeader)); /* Save info for possible future use */ UsedShmemSegAddr = memAddress; UsedShmemSegID = (unsigned long) NextShmemSegID; return hdr; } #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND /* * PGSharedMemoryReAttach * * Re-attach to an already existing shared memory segment. In the non * EXEC_BACKEND case this is not used, because postmaster children inherit * the shared memory segment attachment via fork(). * * UsedShmemSegID and UsedShmemSegAddr are implicit parameters to this * routine. The caller must have already restored them to the postmaster's * values. */ void PGSharedMemoryReAttach(void) { int fd; void *hdr; void *origUsedShmemSegAddr = UsedShmemSegAddr; Assert(UsedShmemSegAddr != NULL); Assert(IsUnderPostmaster); #ifdef __CYGWIN__ /* cygipc (currently) appears to not detach on exec. */ PGSharedMemoryDetach(); UsedShmemSegAddr = origUsedShmemSegAddr; #endif elog(DEBUG3, "attaching to %p", UsedShmemSegAddr); hdr = (void *) PGSharedMemoryAttach((int) UsedShmemSegID); if (hdr == NULL) elog(FATAL, "could not reattach to shared memory (key=%d, addr=%p): %m", (int) UsedShmemSegID, UsedShmemSegAddr); if (hdr != origUsedShmemSegAddr) elog(FATAL, "reattaching to shared memory returned unexpected address (got %p, expected %p)", hdr, origUsedShmemSegAddr); UsedShmemSegAddr = hdr; /* probably redundant */ } #endif /* EXEC_BACKEND */ /* * PGSharedMemoryDetach * * Detach from the shared memory segment, if still attached. This is not * intended for use by the process that originally created the segment * (it will have an on_shmem_exit callback registered to do that). Rather, * this is for subprocesses that have inherited an attachment and want to * get rid of it. */ void PGSharedMemoryDetach(void) { PGShmemHeader *hdr; if (UsedShmemSegAddr != NULL) { hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) UsedShmemSegAddr; if (munmap(UsedShmemSegAddr, hdr->totalsize) < 0) elog(LOG, "munmap(%p) failed: %m", UsedShmemSegAddr); UsedShmemSegAddr = NULL; } } /* * Attach to shared memory and make sure it has a Postgres header * * Returns attach address if OK, else NULL */ static PGShmemHeader * PGSharedMemoryAttach(int key) { PGShmemHeader *hdr; char keyName[IPCNameLength]; Size size; int fd; GenerateIPCName(key, keyName); if ((fd = shm_open(keyName, O_RDWR, 0)) < 0) return NULL; hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) mmap(UsedShmemSegAddr, sizeof(PGShmemHeader), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); if (hdr == (PGShmemHeader *) -1) { close(fd); return NULL; /* failed: must be some other app's */ } if (hdr->magic != PGShmemMagic) { close(fd); munmap((void *) hdr, sizeof(PGShmemHeader)); return NULL; /* segment belongs to a non-Postgres app */ } /* Since the segment has a valid Postgres header, unmap and re-map it with the proper size */ size = hdr->totalsize; munmap((void *) hdr, sizeof(PGShmemHeader)); hdr = (PGShmemHeader *) mmap(UsedShmemSegAddr, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); close(fd); return hdr; }
Attachment
Chris Marcellino <maps@levelview.com> writes: > To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the POSIX > calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing collision by > using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). This has been suggested before, and rejected before, on the grounds that the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is attached to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous robustness hit for us. We are not going to risk destroying someone's database (or in the alternative, failing to restart after most crashes, which it looks like your patch would do) in order to make installation fractionally easier. I read through your patch in the hopes that you had a solution for this, but all I find is a copied-and-pasted comment > /* > * We detect whether a shared memory segment is in use by seeing whether > * it (a) exists and (b) has any processes are attached to it. > */ followed by code that does no such thing. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Chris Marcellino <maps@levelview.com> writes: >> To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the POSIX >> calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing collision by >> using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). > > This has been suggested before, and rejected before, on the grounds that > the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is attached > to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous robustness > hit for us. We are not going to risk destroying someone's database > (or in the alternative, failing to restart after most crashes, which > it looks like your patch would do) in order to make installation > fractionally easier. > > I read through your patch in the hopes that you had a solution for this, > but all I find is a copied-and-pasted comment > >> /* >> * We detect whether a shared memory segment is in use by seeing whether >> * it (a) exists and (b) has any processes are attached to it. >> */ > > followed by code that does no such thing. Just an idea, but would it be possible to have a small SysV area as an "advisory lock" (using the existing semantics) to protect the POSIX segment. Best Regards Michael Paesold
Tom, that is a definitely valid point and thanks for the feedback. I assume that the 'more modern' string segment naming gave the POSIX methods an edge in avoiding collision between other apps. As far as detecting a) whether anyone else is currently attached to that segment and b) whether an earlier existence of the current backend was still attached to a segment, I presumed that checking the pid's of the backend that owns the shared memory segment and checking the data directory (both which the SysV code already does) would suffice? What am I forgetting? Michael, that is an interesting idea. That might be an avenue to explore if there isn't a simpler way. Thanks, Chris Marcellino On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Michael Paesold wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Chris Marcellino <maps@levelview.com> writes: >>> To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the >>> POSIX calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing >>> collision by using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). >> This has been suggested before, and rejected before, on the >> grounds that >> the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is >> attached >> to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous >> robustness >> hit for us. We are not going to risk destroying someone's database >> (or in the alternative, failing to restart after most crashes, which >> it looks like your patch would do) in order to make installation >> fractionally easier. >> I read through your patch in the hopes that you had a solution for >> this, >> but all I find is a copied-and-pasted comment >>> /* >>> * We detect whether a shared memory segment is in use by seeing >>> whether >>> * it (a) exists and (b) has any processes are attached to it. >>> */ >> followed by code that does no such thing. > > Just an idea, but would it be possible to have a small SysV area as > an "advisory lock" (using the existing semantics) to protect the > POSIX segment. > > Best Regards > Michael Paesold > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
Chris Marcellino wrote: > Tom, that is a definitely valid point and thanks for the feedback. I > assume that the 'more modern' string segment naming gave the POSIX > methods an edge in avoiding collision between other apps. > As far as detecting a) whether anyone else is currently attached to > that segment and b) whether an earlier existence of the current > backend was still attached to a segment, I presumed that checking the > pid's of the backend that owns the shared memory segment and checking > the data directory (both which the SysV code already does) would > suffice? Is there an API call to list all PIDs that are connected to a particular segment? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
To my knowledge there is unfortunately not a portable call that does that. I was actually referring to the check that the current SysV code does on the pid that is stored in the shmem header. I presume that if the backend is dead, the kill(hdr->creatorPID, 0) returning zero would suffice for confirming the existence of the other backend process. Chris Marcellino On Feb 6, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Chris Marcellino wrote: >> Tom, that is a definitely valid point and thanks for the feedback. I >> assume that the 'more modern' string segment naming gave the POSIX >> methods an edge in avoiding collision between other apps. >> As far as detecting a) whether anyone else is currently attached to >> that segment and b) whether an earlier existence of the current >> backend was still attached to a segment, I presumed that checking the >> pid's of the backend that owns the shared memory segment and checking >> the data directory (both which the SysV code already does) would >> suffice? > > Is there an API call to list all PIDs that are connected to a > particular > segment? > > -- > Alvaro Herrera http:// > www.CommandPrompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Chris Marcellino <maps@levelview.com> writes: > I was actually referring to the check that the current SysV code does > on the pid that is stored in the shmem header. I presume that if the > backend is dead, the kill(hdr->creatorPID, 0) returning zero would > suffice for confirming the existence of the other backend process. No, that's not relevant, because only the postmaster's PID will be there --- that test is actually more or less redundant with the existing postmaster.pid lockfile checks. The thing that the SysV attachment count is useful for is detecting whether there are orphaned backends still alive in the database (and potentially changing it, hence the danger). We've speculated on occasion about using file locking in some form as a substitute mechanism for detecting this, but that seems to just bring its own set of not-too-portable assumptions. regards, tom lane
From: "Chris Marcellino" <maps@levelview.com> > To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the POSIX > calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing collision by > using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). I hope your work will be accepted. Setting IPC parameters is tedious for normal users, and they sometimes miss the manual article and hit the IPC resource shortage problem, particularly when the system developers run multiple instances on a single machine at the same time. Then, how about semaphores? When I just do configure, PostgreSQL seems to use SysV semaphores. But POSIX semaphore implementation is prepared in src/backend/port/posix_sema.c. Why isn't it used by default? Does it have any problem? # Windows is good in this point, isn't it? I'm sorry to ask you a question even though I've not read your patch well. Does mmap(MAP_SHARED) need msync() to make the change by one process visible to other processes? I found the following in the manual page of mmap on Linux: ------------------------------------------------------------ MAP_SHARED Share this mapping with all other processes that map this object. Storing to the region is equivalent to writing to the file. The file may not actually be updated until msync(2) or munmap(2) are called. ------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, is the number of semaphores for dummy backends (eg bgwriter, autovacuum) counted in PostgreSQL manual? From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is attached > to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous robustness > hit for us. We are not going to risk destroying someone's database > (or in the alternative, failing to restart after most crashes, which > it looks like your patch would do) in order to make installation > fractionally easier. How is this done on Windows? Is it possible to count the number of processes that attach a shared memory?
Responses inline. On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Takayuki Tsunakawa wrote: > From: "Chris Marcellino" <maps@levelview.com> >> To this end, I have "ported" the svsv_shmem.c layer to use the POSIX >> calls (which are some ways more robust w.r.t reducing collision by >> using strings as shared memory id's, instead of ints). > > I hope your work will be accepted. Setting IPC parameters is tedious > for normal users, and they sometimes miss the manual article and hit > the IPC resource shortage problem, particularly when the system > developers run multiple instances on a single machine at the same > time. As Tom pointed out, the code I posted yesterday is not robust enough for general consumption. I'm working on a better solution, which will likely involve using a very small SysV shmem segment as a mutex of sorts (as Michael Paesold suggested). > Then, how about semaphores? When I just do configure, PostgreSQL > seems to use SysV semaphores. But POSIX semaphore implementation is > prepared in src/backend/port/posix_sema.c. Why isn't it used by > default? Does it have any problem? > In this case, semaphore usage is unrelated to shared memory shortages. Also, on many platforms the posix_sema's code is used. Either way, Essentially, no one is running out of shared memory due to semaphores. > # Windows is good in this point, isn't it? From what I can tell, if you look at the Windows SysV shmem emulation code in src/backend/port/win32/shmem.c, you will see in the shmctl() function that the 'other process detection' code is not implemented, since their is no corresponding Win32 API to implement this. There is only so much you can do in that case. As far as the other platforms go, any replacement for the SysV shmem code should be as reliable as what preceded it. > > I'm sorry to ask you a question even though I've not read your patch > well. Does mmap(MAP_SHARED) need msync() to make the change by one > process visible to other processes? I found the following in the > manual page of mmap on Linux: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > MAP_SHARED Share this mapping with all other processes that > map this > object. Storing to the region is equivalent to writing to > the file. The file may not actually be updated until > msync(2) or munmap(2) are called. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > BTW, is the number of semaphores for dummy backends (eg bgwriter, > autovacuum) counted in PostgreSQL manual? > > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is > attached >> to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous > robustness >> hit for us. We are not going to risk destroying someone's database >> (or in the alternative, failing to restart after most crashes, which >> it looks like your patch would do) in order to make installation >> fractionally easier. > > How is this done on Windows? Is it possible to count the number of > processes that attach a shared memory? > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
"Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> writes: > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is >> attached to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous >> robustness hit for us. > How is this done on Windows? Is it possible to count the number of > processes that attach a shared memory? AFAIK the Windows port is simply wrong/insecure on this point --- it's one of the reasons you'll never see me recommending Windows as the OS for a production Postgres server. regards, tom lane
Chris Marcellino <maps@levelview.com> writes: > As Tom pointed out, the code I posted yesterday is not robust enough > for general consumption. I'm working on a better solution, which will > likely involve using a very small SysV shmem segment as a mutex of > sorts (as Michael Paesold suggested). One problem with Michael's idea is that it gives up one of the better arguments for having a POSIX option, namely to allow us to run on platforms where SysV shmem support is not there at all. I'm not sure whether the idea can be implemented without creating new failure modes; that will have to wait on seeing a patch. But the strength of the coupling between the SysV and POSIX segments is certainly going to be a red-flag item to look at. >> Then, how about semaphores? When I just do configure, PostgreSQL >> seems to use SysV semaphores. But POSIX semaphore implementation is >> prepared in src/backend/port/posix_sema.c. Why isn't it used by >> default? Does it have any problem? > In this case, semaphore usage is unrelated to shared memory > shortages. Also, on many platforms the posix_sema's code is used. > Either way, Essentially, no one is running out of shared memory due > to semaphores. AFAIK the only platform where the POSIX sema code is really used is Darwin (OS X), and it is not something I'd use there if I had a choice. The problem with it is that *every* semaphore corresponds to an open file handle in the postmaster that has to be inherited by *every* forked child. So N backend slots cost you O(N^2) in kernel filehandles and process fork overhead, plus if N is big you're taking a serious hit in the number of disk files any one backend can have open. This problem may be specific to Darwin's implementation of the POSIX spec, but it's real enough there. If you trawl the archives you'll probably notice a lack of people running big Postgres installations on Darwin, and this is why. regards, tom lane
ep
>> Then, how about semaphores? When I just do configure, PostgreSQL >> seems to use SysV semaphores. But POSIX semaphore implementation is >> prepared in src/backend/port/posix_sema.c. Why isn't it used by >> default? Does it have any problem? >> > > Either way, Essentially, no one is running out of shared memory due > to semaphores. > In this case, semaphore usage is unrelated to shared memory > shortages. Yes, of course, shared memory is not related to semaphores. > Also, on many platforms the posix_sema's code is used. Really? When I run 'configure' without any parameter on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0 (kernel 2.6.x), PostgreSQL uses SysV semaphores. I confirmed that by seeing the result of 'ipcs -u'. What platforms is POSIX sema used by PostgreSQL by default?
Yes, as Tom pointed out. Sorry, I misread the autoconf file. I've gotten quite used to Darwin == BSD. I've added a note to my todo list to look into the posix semaphore performance on the Darwin side. --Chris On Feb 6, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Takayuki Tsunakawa wrote: >>> Then, how about semaphores? When I just do configure, PostgreSQL >>> seems to use SysV semaphores. But POSIX semaphore implementation > is >>> prepared in src/backend/port/posix_sema.c. Why isn't it used by >>> default? Does it have any problem? >>> >> >> Either way, Essentially, no one is running out of shared memory due >> to semaphores. >> In this case, semaphore usage is unrelated to shared memory >> shortages. > > Yes, of course, shared memory is not related to semaphores. > >> Also, on many platforms the posix_sema's code is used. > > Really? When I run 'configure' without any parameter on Red Hat > Enterprise Linux 4.0 (kernel 2.6.x), PostgreSQL uses SysV semaphores. > I confirmed that by seeing the result of 'ipcs -u'. What platforms is > POSIX sema used by PostgreSQL by default? > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Attached is a beta of the POSIX shared memory layer. It is 75% the original sysv_shmem.c code. I'm looking for ways to refactor it down a bit, while changing as little of the tried-and-tested code as possible. I though I'd put it out there for comments. Of course, unfortunately it is more complicated than the original as it uses both sets of API. Also, I haven't tested the crash recovery thoroughly. The POSIX code could be used Windows-style (i.e. no crash recovery) if one ifdef'd out the SysV calls properly, if they had such a POSIX-only platform they needed to run Postgres on. Using both API is certainly not ideal. You mentioned, > We've speculated on occasion about using file locking in some form > as a > substitute mechanism for detecting this, but that seems to just bring > its own set of not-too-portable assumptions What sort of file locking did you have in mind? Do you think this might be worth me trying? Thanks for your help, Chris Marcellino
Attachment
Tom Lane wrote: > > We've speculated on occasion about using file locking in some form as a > substitute mechanism for detecting this, but that seems to just bring > its own set of not-too-portable assumptions. > Maybe we should look some more at that. Use of file locking was one thought I had today after I saw Tom's earlier comments. Perl provides a moderately portable flock(), which we use in fact in buildfarm to stop it from running more than one at a time on a given repo copy. The Perl description starts thus: Calls flock(2), or an emulation of it, on FILEHANDLE. Returns true for success, false on failure. Produces a fatal error if used on a machine that doesn't implement flock(2), fcntl(2) locking, or lockf(3). "flock" is Perl's portable file locking interface, although it locks only entire files, not records. Note that this means it works on every platform that has ever reported on buildfarm. Maybe we can borrow some code. cheers andrew
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:08:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> writes: > > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > >> the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is > >> attached to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous > >> robustness hit for us. > > > How is this done on Windows? Is it possible to count the number of > > processes that attach a shared memory? > > AFAIK the Windows port is simply wrong/insecure on this point --- it's > one of the reasons you'll never see me recommending Windows as the OS > for a production Postgres server. What exactly is the failure case? Might be able to figure out a way to do what we want on win32 even if it's not possible to do it exactly with the sysv semantics. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:08:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> AFAIK the Windows port is simply wrong/insecure on this point --- it's >> one of the reasons you'll never see me recommending Windows as the OS >> for a production Postgres server. > What exactly is the failure case? Might be able to figure out a way to > do what we want on win32 even if it's not possible to do it exactly with > the sysv semantics. kill -9 postmaster (only), then try to start new postmaster. This should succeed if and only if there are no live orphaned backends. An implementation that hasn't got a direct test for the presence of backends can only get one of the two cases correct. On Windows (or really any EXEC_BACKEND platform) there's an additional problem, which is that even with an attach count you have a race condition: what if the postmaster launched a new backend just before dying, and that process has not yet re-attached to shared memory? I don't think this is a big problem in practice, because most people don't feel a need for an automated postmaster-restarting monitor, and so the time scale for human intervention is too long to hit the race condition. But it's annoying from a theoretical perspective. It's probably possible to replace the attach-count test with some sort of file locking convention --- eg if all the backends hold some type of shared lock on postmaster.pid. This seems unlikely to be much more portable than the attach-count solution as far as Unixen go, but if we're looking for a Windows-specific solution that's where I'd look. regards, tom lane
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Maybe we should look some more at that. Use of file locking was one > thought I had today after I saw Tom's earlier comments. > > Perl provides a moderately portable flock(), which we use in fact in > buildfarm to stop it from running more than one at a time on a given repo > copy. But does it work over NFS? On my system, the flock manpage claims it doesn't, lockf doesn't say and fcntl also doesn't say, but the flock manpage says fcntl does. A lot of people runs servers on NFS, even though we recommend they don't. And there are those strange hybrids like SANs, NASes or what have you. One serious problem is that if the lock doesn't work for some reason like NFSness, it will fail silently, which is not acceptable. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >> Maybe we should look some more at that. Use of file locking was one >> thought I had today after I saw Tom's earlier comments. >> >> Perl provides a moderately portable flock(), which we use in fact in >> buildfarm to stop it from running more than one at a time on a given repo >> copy. >> > > But does it work over NFS? On my system, the flock manpage claims it > doesn't, lockf doesn't say and fcntl also doesn't say, but the flock > manpage says fcntl does. A lot of people runs servers on NFS, even > though we recommend they don't. And there are those strange hybrids > like SANs, NASes or what have you. > > One serious problem is that if the lock doesn't work for some reason > like NFSness, it will fail silently, which is not acceptable. > > Fair point. Perl in fact uses whatever it can from the underlying system, preferring (I think) flock, then fcntl, then lockf. So its flock is quite possibly not NFS safe in many cases. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Perl provides a moderately portable flock(), which we use in fact in > buildfarm to stop it from running more than one at a time on a given repo > copy. > [...] > Maybe we can borrow some code. Probably not, because it's GPL/Artistic; but we could borrow some ideas instead. The relevant code is here http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/f/pp_sys.c -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:40:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:08:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> AFAIK the Windows port is simply wrong/insecure on this point --- it's > >> one of the reasons you'll never see me recommending Windows as the OS > >> for a production Postgres server. > > > What exactly is the failure case? Might be able to figure out a way to > > do what we want on win32 even if it's not possible to do it exactly with > > the sysv semantics. > > kill -9 postmaster (only), then try to start new postmaster. This > should succeed if and only if there are no live orphaned backends. > An implementation that hasn't got a direct test for the presence of > backends can only get one of the two cases correct. > > On Windows (or really any EXEC_BACKEND platform) there's an additional > problem, which is that even with an attach count you have a race > condition: what if the postmaster launched a new backend just before > dying, and that process has not yet re-attached to shared memory? > I don't think this is a big problem in practice, because most people > don't feel a need for an automated postmaster-restarting monitor, and > so the time scale for human intervention is too long to hit the race > condition. But it's annoying from a theoretical perspective. > > It's probably possible to replace the attach-count test with some sort > of file locking convention --- eg if all the backends hold some type of > shared lock on postmaster.pid. This seems unlikely to be much more > portable than the attach-count solution as far as Unixen go, but if > we're looking for a Windows-specific solution that's where I'd look. Ok. From what I can tell, we create a shared mem segment named PostgreSQL.5432001. If I kill postmaster with something active, and start a new one, it gets named PostgreSQL.5432002. If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory instead of the port? On win32 we do not have the problem of "orphaned segments", because once the last process that holds a segment dies, the segment always goes away. An anonymous region cannot exist if there are no handles open to it. As for the EXEC_BACKEND case you mentioned, don't think it's an issue on win32. If the postmaster dies before the backend re-attaches, the backend will fail to re-attach. I think? Thoughts? //Magnus
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be > impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. > That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the > name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory > instead of the port? That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data directory path ... otherwise not so much ... regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be >> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. >> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the >> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory >> instead of the port? > > That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data > directory path ... otherwise not so much ... Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364963.aspx). I think that should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least. It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone *trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake... Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get some spare time. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be >>> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. >>> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the >>> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory >>> instead of the port? >> >> That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data >> directory path ... otherwise not so much ... > Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it > (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364963.aspx). I think that > should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least. > It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data > directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone > *trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake... > Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get > some spare time. Sounds reasonable --- certainly it'd be better than the current situation. I assume that we can have long enough shared memory segment names that the data directory path length isn't unduly constrained? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>>> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be >>>> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. >>>> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the >>>> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory >>>> instead of the port? >>> That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data >>> directory path ... otherwise not so much ... > >> Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it >> (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364963.aspx). I think that >> should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least. > >> It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data >> directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone >> *trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake... > >> Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get >> some spare time. > > Sounds reasonable --- certainly it'd be better than the current > situation. I assume that we can have long enough shared memory segment > names that the data directory path length isn't unduly constrained? From what I can see, we can have a shared memory segment name that is just as long as any path name. Will run some tests on that to make absolutely sure. //Magnus