Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and PANIC during shutdowncheckpoint in publisher - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-06-02 17:20:23 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Attached is a *preliminary* patch series implementing this.  I've first
>> reverted the previous patch, as otherwise backpatchable versions of the
>> necessary patches would get too complicated, due to the signals used and
>> such.

That makes sense.

> I went again through this, and the only real thing I found that there
> was a leftover prototype in walsender.h.  I've in interim worked on
> backpatch versions of that series, annoying conflicts, but nothing
> really problematic.  The only real difference is adding SetLatch() calls
> to HandleWalSndInitStopping() < 9.6, and guarding SetLatch with an if <
> 9.5.
>
> As an additional patch (based on one by Petr), even though it more
> belongs to
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20170421014030.fdzvvvbrz4nckrow%40alap3.anarazel.de
> attached is a patch unifying SIGHUP between normal and walsender
> backends.  This needs to be backpatched all the way.  I've also attached
> a second patch, again based on Petr's, that unifies SIGHUP handling
> across all the remaining backends, but that's something that probably
> more appropriate for v11, although I'm still tempted to commit it
> earlier.

I have looked at all those patches. The set looks solid to me.

0001 and 0002 are straight-forward things. It makes sense to unify the
SIGUSR1 handling.

Here are some comments about 0003.

+ * This will trigger walsenders to send the remaining WAL, prevent them from
+ * accepting further commands. After that they'll wait till the last WAL is
+ * written.
s/prevent/preventing/?
I would rephrase the last sentence a bit:
"After that each WAL sender will wait until the end-of-checkpoint
record has been flushed on the receiver side."

+           /*
+            * Have WalSndLoop() terminate the connection in an orderly
+            * manner, after writing out all the pending data.
+            */
+           if (got_STOPPING)
+               got_SIGUSR2 = true;
I think that for correctness the state of the WAL sender should be
switched to WALSNDSTATE_STOPPING in XLogSendLogical() as well.

About 0004... This definitely meritates a backpatch, PostgresMain() is
taken by WAL senders as well when executing queries.

-       if (got_SIGHUP)
+       if (ConfigRereadPending)       {
-           got_SIGHUP = false;
+           ConfigRereadPending = false;
A more appropriate name would be ConfigReloadPending perhaps?

0005 looks like a fine one-liner to me.

For 0006, you could include as well the removal of worker_spi_sighup()
in the refactoring. I think that it would be interesting to be able to
trigger a feedback message using SIGHUP in WAL receivers, refactoring
at the same time SIGHUP handling for WAL receivers. It is possible for
example to abuse SIGHUP in autovacuum for cost parameters.
-- 
Michael