Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1

On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 12:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In testing, it looks like there's still something wrong with the
> subtransaction handling. I created a test function to create a large
> number of subtransactions:
>
> CREATE LANGUAGE plpgsql;
> CREATE TABLE bar (id int4);
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION subxids (n integer) RETURNS void LANGUAGE
> plpgsql AS $$
> BEGIN
> IF n <= 0 THEN RETURN; END IF;
> INSERT INTO bar VALUES (n);
> PERFORM subxids(n - 1);
> RETURN;
> EXCEPTION WHEN raise_exception THEN NULL; END;
> $$;
>
> And used that to created 100 nested subtransactions in the primary server:
>
> SELECT subxids(100);
>
>
> I got this in the standby:
>
> ...
> LOG: REDO @ 0/A000EA8; LSN 0/A000FCC: prev 0/A000E6C; xid 2662; len
> 264: Transaction - xid assignment xtop 2599 nsubxids 64; 2600 2601 2602
> 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616
> 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630
> 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644
> 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658
> 2659 2660 2661 2662 0
> LOG: extend subtrans xid 2600 page 1 last_page 0
> CONTEXT: rmgr 1 redo xid assignment xtop 2599 nsubxids 64; 2600 2601
> 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615
> 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629
> 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643
> 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657
> 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 0
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((newestXact) >= ((TransactionId) 3)))", File:
> "subtrans.c", Line: 299)
> LOG: startup process (PID 28594) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
> LOG: terminating any other active server processes
>
> Apparently an InvalidXid is sneaking into the unreported xid array
> collected in the primary.
>
> I actually bumped into this while I was testing a simpler implementation
> of the logic to collect the unreported xids in the primary. As the patch
> stands, we keep track of how many of the childXids at each
> subtransaction level have already been reported, but it occurs to me
> that it would be a lot simpler to populate a separate array of
> unreported xids on-the-fly, as xids are assigned. With the simpler
> implementation I bumped into another issue (see below), which is why I
> wanted to test if it worked without the simplification.

The bug seems an off-by-one error and would seem easily corrected in any
case; there is no fundamental problem revealed.

I prefer your suggested approach, since it avoids that rather complex
looking code that did the grovelling thru the nested xact states.

I'll get back to you with more on this tomorrow.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com