Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:>
>> I'm not hung up on the table-level attribute, but I think having a
>> server-level attribute rather than a global GUC is a good idea.
>> However, I welcome other thoughts on that.
>
> The patch supports server level attribute. Let me repeat the relevant
> description from my earlier mail
> --
> Every FDW needs to register the connection while starting new transaction on
> a foreign connection (RegisterXactForeignServer()). A foreign server
> connection is identified by foreign server oid and the local user oid
> (similar to the entry cached by postgres_fdw). While registering, FDW also
> tells whether the foreign server is capable of participating in two-phase
> commit protocol. How to decide that is left entirely to the FDW. An FDW like
> file_fdw may not have 2PC support at all, so all its foreign servers do not
> comply with 2PC. An FDW might have all its servers 2PC compliant. An FDW
> like postgres_fdw can have some of its servers compliant and some not,
> depending upon server version, configuration (max_prepared_transactions = 0)
> etc.
> --
>
> Does that look good?

OK, sure.  But let's make sure postgres_fdw gets a server-level option
to control this.

>> > Done, there are three hooks now
>> > 1. For preparing a foreign transaction
>> > 2. For resolving a prepared foreign transaction
>> > 3. For committing/aborting a running foreign transaction (more
>> > explanation
>> > later)
>>
>> (2) and (3) seem like the same thing.  I don't see any further
>> explanation later in your email; what am I missing?
>
> In case of postgres_fdw, 2 always fires COMMIT/ROLLBACK PREPARED 'xyz' (fill
> the prepared transaction id) and 3 always fires COMMIT/ABORT TRANSACTION
> (notice absence of PREPARED and 'xyz').

Oh, OK.  But then isn't #3 something we already have?  i.e. pgfdw_xact_callback?

>> That seems totally broken.  Before PITR, the database might be
>> inconsistent, in which case you can't call any functions at all.
>> Also, you shouldn't be trying to resolve any transactions until the
>> end of recovery, because you don't know when you see that the
>> transaction was prepared whether, at some subsequent time, you will
>> see it resolved.  You need to finish recovery and, only after entering
>> normal running, decide whether to resolve any transactions that are
>> still sitting around.
>
> That's how it works in the patch for unresolved prepared foreign
> transactions belonging to xids within the known range. For those belonging
> to xids in future (beyond of known range of xids after PITR), we can not
> determine the status of that local transaction (as those do not appear in
> the xlog) and hence can not decide the fate of prepared foreign transaction.
> You seem to be suggesting that we should let the recovery finish and mark
> those prepared foreign transaction as "can not be resolved" or something
> like that. A DBA can remove those entries once s/he has dealt with them on
> the foreign server.
>
> There's little problem with that approach. Triplet (xid, serverid, userid)
> is used to identify the a foreign prepared transaction entry in memory and
> is used to create unique file name for storing it on the disk. If we allow a
> future xid after PITR, it might conflict with an xid of a transaction that
> might take place after PITR. It will cause problem if exactly same foreign
> server and user participate in the transaction with conflicting xid (rare
> but possible).
>
> Other problem is that the foreign server on which the transaction was
> prepared (or the user whose mapping was used to prepare the transaction),
> might have got added in a future time wrt PITR, in which case, we can not
> even know which foreign server this transaction was prepared on.
>
>> There should be no situation (short of e.g. OS
>> errors writing the state files) where this stuff makes recovery fail.
>
> During PITR, if we encounter a prepared (local) transaction with a future
> xid, we just forget that prepared transaction (instead of failing recovery).
> May be we should do the same for unresolved foreign prepared transaction as
> well (at least for version 1); forget the unresolved prepared foreign
> transactions which belong to a future xid. Anyway, as per the timeline after
> PITR those never existed.

This last sentence seems to me to be exactly on point.  Note the
comment in twophase.c:
* We throw away any prepared xacts with main XID beyond nextXid --- if any* are present, it suggests that the DBA has
donea PITR recovery to an* earlier point in time without cleaning out pg_twophase.  We dare not* try to recover such
preparedxacts since they likely depend on database* state that doesn't exist now.
 

In other words, normally there should never be any XIDs "from the
future" with prepared transactions; but in certain PITR scenarios it
might be possible.  We might as well be consistent with what the
existing 2PC code does in this case - i.e. just warn and then remove
the files.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company