From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_recvlogical prints bogus error when interrupted |
Date: | 2022-10-21 02:21:58 |
Message-ID: | 20221021.112158.570945868472438027.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:28:45 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:10 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While reviewing
> > https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBe2o2D%3Dxyycsxw2bQOD%3DzPj7ETuJ5VYGN%3DdpoTiCMRJQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > I noticed that pg_recvlogical prints
> > "pg_recvlogical: error: unexpected termination of replication stream: "
> >
> > when signalled with SIGINT/TERM.
> >
> > Oddly enough, that looks to have "always" been the case, even though clearly
> > the code tried to make provisions for a different outcome.
> >
> >
> > It looks to me like all that's needed is to gate the block printing the
> > message with an !time_to_abort.
+1
> +1. How about emitting a message like its friend pg_receivewal, like
> the attached patch?
I'm not a fan of treating SIGINT as an error in this case. It calls
prepareToTerminate() when time_to_abort and everything goes fine after
then. So I think we should do the same thing after receiving an
interrupt. This also does file-sync naturally as a part of normal
shutdown. I'm also not a fan of doing fsync at error.
> > I also then noticed that we don't fsync the output file in cases of errors -
> > that seems wrong to me? Looks to me like that block should be moved till after
> > the error:?
>
> How about something like the attached patch?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_recvlogical_graceful_interrupt.txt | text/plain | 2.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-10-21 02:26:45 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639) |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-10-21 02:09:34 | Re: explain_regress, explain(MACHINE), and default to explain(BUFFERS) (was: BUFFERS enabled by default in EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)) |