Re: SyncRepLock acquired exclusively in default configuration - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2020/08/20 11:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:20:46 +0000, Asim Praveen <pasim@vmware.com> wrote in
>>
>>
>>> On 12-Aug-2020, at 12:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 14:06, Asim Praveen <pasim@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11-Aug-2020, at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this gets to the root of the issue. If we check the flag
>>>>> without a lock, we might see a slightly stale value. But, considering
>>>>> that there's no particular amount of time within which configuration
>>>>> changes are guaranteed to take effect, maybe that's OK. However, there
>>>>> is one potential gotcha here: if the walsender declares the standby to
>>>>> be synchronous, a user can see that, right? So maybe there's this
>>>>> problem: a user sees that the standby is synchronous and expects a
>>>>> transaction committing afterward to provoke a wait, but really it
>>>>> doesn't. Now the user is unhappy, feeling that the system didn't
>>>>> perform according to expectations.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, pg_stat_replication reports a standby in sync as soon as walsender updates priority of the standby to
somethingother than 0.
 
>>>>
>>>> The potential gotcha referred above doesn’t seem too severe.  What is the likelihood of someone setting
synchronous_standby_namesGUC with either “*” or a standby name and then immediately promoting that standby?  If the
standbyis promoted before the checkpointer on master gets a chance to update sync_standbys_defined in shared memory,
commitsmade during this interval on master may not make it to standby.  Upon promotion, those commits may be lost.
 
>>>
>>> I think that if the standby is quite behind the primary and in case of
>>> the primary crashes, the likelihood of losing commits might get
>>> higher. The user can see the standby became synchronous standby via
>>> pg_stat_replication but commit completes without a wait because the
>>> checkpointer doesn't update sync_standbys_defined yet. If the primary
>>> crashes before standby catching up and the user does failover, the
>>> committed transaction will be lost, even though the user expects that
>>> transaction commit has been replicated to the standby synchronously.
>>> And this can happen even without the patch, right?
>>>
>>
>> It is correct that the issue is orthogonal to the patch upthread and I’ve marked
>> the commitfest entry as ready-for-committer.

Yes, thanks for the review!


> I find the name of SyncStandbysDefined macro is very confusing with
> the struct member sync_standbys_defined, but that might be another
> issue..
> 
> -     * Fast exit if user has not requested sync replication.
> +     * Fast exit if user has not requested sync replication, or there are no
> +     * sync replication standby names defined.
> 
> This comment sounds like we just do that twice. The reason for the
> check is to avoid wasteful exclusive locks on SyncRepLock, or to form
> double-checked locking on the variable. I think we should explain that
> here.

I added the following comments based on the suggestion by Sawada-san upthread. Thought?

+     * Since this routine gets called every commit time, it's important to
+     * exit quickly if sync replication is not requested. So we check
+     * WalSndCtl->sync_standbys_define without the lock and exit
+     * immediately if it's false. If it's true, we check it again later
+     * while holding the lock, to avoid the race condition described
+     * in SyncRepUpdateSyncStandbysDefined().


Attached is the updated version of the patch. I didn't change how to
fix the issue. But I changed the check for fast exit so that it's called
before setting the "mode", to avoid a few cycle.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION