RE: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) |
---|---|
Subject | RE: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo |
Date | |
Msg-id | TYAPR01MB5866A4E7342088E91362BEF0F5BBA@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>) |
Responses |
RE: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Dear hackers, This email tells an update. The machine drongo failed the test a week ago [1] and finally got logfiles. PSA files. ## Observed failure pg_upgrade_server.log is a server log during the pg_upgrade command. According to it, the TRUNCATE command seemed to be failed due to a "File exists" error. ``` 2023-11-15 00:02:02.239 UTC [1752:18] 003_logical_slots.pl ERROR: could not create file "base/1/2683": File exists 2023-11-15 00:02:02.239 UTC [1752:19] 003_logical_slots.pl STATEMENT: -- For binary upgrade, preserve pg_largeobject and index relfilenodes SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_index_relfilenode('2683'::pg_catalog.oid); SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_heap_relfilenode('2613'::pg_catalog.oid); TRUNCATE pg_catalog.pg_largeobject; ... ``` ## Analysis I think it caused due to the STATUS_DELETE_PENDING failure, not related with recent updates for pg_upgrade. The file "base/1/2683" is an index file for pg_largeobject_loid_pn_index, and the output meant that file creation was failed. Below is a backtrace. ``` pgwin32_open() // <-- this returns -1 open() BasicOpenFilePerm() PathNameOpenFilePerm() PathNameOpenFile() mdcreate() smgrcreate() RelationCreateStorage() RelationSetNewRelfilenumber() ExecuteTruncateGuts() ExecuteTruncate() ``` But this is strange. Before calling mdcreate(), we surely unlink the file which have the same name. Below is a trace until unlink. ``` pgunlink() unlink() mdunlinkfork() mdunlink() smgrdounlinkall() RelationSetNewRelfilenumber() // common path with above ExecuteTruncateGuts() ExecuteTruncate() ``` I found Thomas said that [2] pgunlink sometimes could not remove file even if it returns OK, at that time NTSTATUS is STATUS_DELETE_PENDING. Also, a comment in pgwin32_open_handle() mentions the same thing: ``` /* * ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED is returned if the file is deleted but not yet * gone (Windows NT status code is STATUS_DELETE_PENDING). In that * case, we'd better ask for the NT status too so we can translate it * to a more Unix-like error. We hope that nothing clobbers the NT * status in between the internal NtCreateFile() call and CreateFile() * returning. * ``` The definition of STATUS_DELETE_PENDING can be seen in [3]. Based on that, indeed, open() would be able to fail with STATUS_DELETE_PENDING if the deletion is pending but it is tried to open. Another thread [4] also tries the issue while doing rmtree->unlink, and it reties to remove if it fails with STATUS_DELETE_PENDING. So, should we retry to open when it fails as well? Anyway, this fix seems out-of-scope for pg_upgrade. How do you think? Do you have any thoughts about it? ## Acknowledgement I want to say thanks to Sholk, Vingesh, for helping the analysis. [1]: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sungazer&dt=2023-11-15%2006%3A16%3A15 [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGKsdzw06c5nnb%3DKYG9GmvyykoVpJA_VR3k0r7cZOKcx6Q%40mail.gmail.com [3]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-erref/596a1078-e883-4972-9bbc-49e60bebca55 [4]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20220919213217.ptqfdlcc5idk5xup%40awork3.anarazel.de#6ae5e2ba3dd6e1fd680dcc34eab710d5 Best Regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
pgsql-hackers by date: