Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Subject | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoAuZm-UR7urLujjd5J+fPpH8wmGDWe+rEZJz2DjEg28xw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
|
List | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:44 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Found one in the time frame you mentioned: > > > > > > 2022-11-10 21:03:24.612 UTC,"upgrayedd","canvas",21748,"10.1.238.101:35640",636d671b.54f4,39,"idle",2022-11-1021:03:23 UTC,7/0,0,DEBUG,00000,"failedto increase restart lsn: proposed 1039D/8B5773D8, after 1039D/9170B010, current candidate 1039D/83825958,current after 1039D/8B5773D8, flushed up to 1039D/91F41B50",,,,,,,,,"focal14" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > LSN 1039D/8B5773D8 seems to be related to this issue. If we advance > > > > > slot's restart_lsn to this LSN, we remove WAL files older than > > > > > 000000000001039D0000008A. > > > > > > > > > > In LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(), since > > > > > "current_lsn(1039D/9170B010) < > > > > > slot->data.confirmed_flush(1039D/91F41B50)", we executed the following > > > > > part and called LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation(): > > > > > > > > > > else if (current_lsn <= slot->data.confirmed_flush) > > > > > { > > > > > slot->candidate_restart_valid = current_lsn; > > > > > slot->candidate_restart_lsn = restart_lsn; > > > > > > > > > > /* our candidate can directly be used */ > > > > > updated_lsn = true; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this would have been executed in > > > > LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(), then the values displayed in > > > > the above DEBUG messages "current candidate 1039D/83825958, current > > > > after 1039D/8B5773D8" should be the same as proposed and after > > > > "proposed 1039D/8B5773D8, after 1039D/9170B010". Am, I missing > > > > something? > > > > > > Oh, you're right. > > > > > > Given restart_lsn was 1039D/8B5773D8, slot->data.restart_lsn was equal > > > to or greater than 1039D/8B5773D8 at that time but > > > slot->candidate_restart_lsn was 1039D/83825958, right? Which is weird. > > > > > > > Yes, that is weird but it had been a bit obvious if the same LOG would > > have printed slot->data.restart_lsn. This means that somehow slot's > > 'candidate_restart_lsn' somehow went behind its 'restart_lsn'. I can't > > figure out yet how that can happen but if that happens then the slot's > > restart_lsn can retreat in LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation() because we > > don't check if slot's candidate_restart_lsn is lesser than its > > restart_lsn before assigning the same in line > > MyReplicationSlot->data.restart_lsn = > > MyReplicationSlot->candidate_restart_lsn;. I think that should be > > checked. Note that we call LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation() can be > > called from ProcessStandbyReplyMessage(), so once the wrong > > candidate_restart_lsn is set, it can be assigned to restart_lsn from > > other code paths as well. > > > > I am not able to think how 'candidate_restart_lsn' can be set to an > > LSN value prior to 'restart_lsn'. > > > > In the below part of the code, we use the value of > 'last_serialized_snapshot' for restart_lsn. > else if (txn == NULL && > builder->reorder->current_restart_decoding_lsn != InvalidXLogRecPtr && > builder->last_serialized_snapshot != InvalidXLogRecPtr) > LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(lsn, > builder->last_serialized_snapshot); > > Now, say, after restart, we start reading from slot's restart_lsn > which is 1039D/8B5773D8. At this LSN, we restored a snapshot that has > the last_seriealized_snapshot set to 1039D/83825958. I don't get this part. You meant that the snapshot we restored at 1039D/8B5773D8 has last_serialized_snapshot set to 1039D/83825958? I think we don't update last_serialized_snapshot when restoring the snapshot. Also, if we restore the snapshot after restart, we don't execute the above code since SnapBuildFindSnapshot() returns false, no? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
pgsql-bugs by date: