From: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ildar(at)adjust(dot)com" <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com>, "horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com" <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp" <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Date: | 2020-10-20 12:22:31 |
Message-ID: | CA+fd4k5o6NYjAF206ZEfxTKZxjFNbxy5rGOd93SFWns6go2qXA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 17:56, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > It seems to respond to a statement-cancel signal immediately while
> > waiting for a coming byte. However, seems to wait forever while
> > waiting a space in send-buffer. (Is that mean the session will be
> > stuck if it sends a large chunk of bytes while the network is down?)
>
> What part makes you worried about that? libpq's send processing?
>
> I've just examined pgfdw_cancel_query(), too. As below, it uses a hidden 30 second timeout. After all, postgres_fdw also relies on timeout already.
It uses the timeout but it's also cancellable before the timeout. See
we call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in pgfdw_get_cleanup_result().
>
>
> > After receiving a signal, it closes the problem connection. So the
> > local session is usable after that but the fiailed remote sessions are
> > closed and created another one at the next use.
>
> I couldn't see that the problematic connection is closed when the cancellation fails... Am I looking at a wrong place?
>
> /*
> * If connection is already unsalvageable, don't touch it
> * further.
> */
> if (entry->changing_xact_state)
> break;
>
I guess Horiguchi-san refereed the following code in pgfdw_xact_callback():
/*
* If the connection isn't in a good idle state, discard it to
* recover. Next GetConnection will open a new connection.
*/
if (PQstatus(entry->conn) != CONNECTION_OK ||
PQtransactionStatus(entry->conn) != PQTRANS_IDLE ||
entry->changing_xact_state)
{
elog(DEBUG3, "discarding connection %p", entry->conn);
disconnect_pg_server(entry);
}
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2020-10-20 12:22:43 | Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-10-20 12:11:16 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |