From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |
Date: | 2017-11-17 02:00:36 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRVOuRWYqcf_BvHrPWnGDfwy04ZaghKVHUP0y6oeG_u-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
>> + * already started.
>> + */
>> + if (sessionBackupState != SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE)
>> + return;
>> I think that it would be more solid to use SESSION_BACKUP_NONE for the
>> comparison, and complete the assertion after the quick exit as follows
>> as this code path should never be taken for an exclusive backup:
>
> Agreed.
I have spent some time doing an extra lookup with tests involving one
and two sessions doing backups checking for failure code paths while
waiting for archives:
- One session with non-exclusive backup.
- One session with exclusive backup.
- One session is exclusive and the second is non-exclusive
- Both are exclusive.
Also double-checked on the way the logic around the cleanup callback
and sessionBackupState during startup, and those look clean to me. One
thing that was bothering me is that the callback
nonexclusive_base_backup_cleanup is called after do_pg_start_backup()
finishes. But between the moment sessionBackupState is set and the
callback is registered there is no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS or even elog()
calls so even if the process starting a non-exclusive backup is tried
to be terminated between the moment the session lock is set and the
callback is registered things are handled correctly.
So I think that we are basically safe for backups running with the SQL
interface.
However, things are not completely clean for base backups taken using
the replication protocol. While monitoring more the code, I have
noticed that perform_base_backup() calls do_pg_stop_backup() *without*
taking any cleanup action. So if a base backup is interrupted, say
with SIGTERM, while do_pg_stop_backup() is called and before the
session lock is updated then it is possible to finish with
inconsistent in-memory counters. Oops.
No need to play with breakpoints and signals in this case, using
something like that is enough to create inconsistent counters.
--- a/src/backend/replication/basebackup.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/basebackup.c
@@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ perform_base_backup(basebackup_options *opt, DIR *tblspcdir)
}
PG_END_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP(base_backup_cleanup, (Datum) 0);
+ elog(ERROR, "base backups don't decrement counters here, stupid!");
+
endptr = do_pg_stop_backup(labelfile->data, !opt->nowait, &endtli);
A simple fix for this one is to call do_pg_stop_backup() before
PG_END_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP(). By doing so, we also make the callback
cleanup logic consistent with what is done for the SQL equivalent
where the callback is removed after finishing going through
do_pg_stop_backup(). A comment would be adapted here, say something
like "finish the backup while still holding the cleanup callback to
avoid inconsistent in-memory data should the this call fail before
sessionBackupState is updated."
For the start phase, the current logic is fine, because in the case of
the SQL interface the cleanup callback is registered after finishing
do_pg_start_backup().
What do you think?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-17 02:31:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2017-11-16 23:46:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures |