Thread
Commits
-
Remove testing for precise LSN/reserved bytes in new TAP test
- 9e9abed74628 13.0 landed
-
Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
- c6550776394e 13.0 cited
-
pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2020-04-07T22:39:19Z
Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots Replication slots are useful to retain data that may be needed by a replication system. But experience has shown that allowing them to retain excessive data can lead to the primary failing because of running out of space. This new feature allows the user to configure a maximum amount of space to be reserved using the new option max_slot_wal_keep_size. Slots that overrun that space are invalidated at checkpoint time, enabling the storage to be released. Author: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170228.122736.123383594.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/c6550776394e25c1620bc8258427c8f1d448080d Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml | 38 +++++ doc/src/sgml/config.sgml | 23 +++ doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml | 8 +- src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c | 145 ++++++++++++++--- src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql | 4 +- src/backend/replication/logical/logicalfuncs.c | 2 +- src/backend/replication/slot.c | 100 +++++++++++- src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c | 44 ++++- src/backend/replication/walsender.c | 4 +- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c | 13 ++ src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample | 1 + src/include/access/xlog.h | 14 ++ src/include/catalog/catversion.h | 2 +- src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat | 6 +- src/include/replication/slot.h | 11 +- src/test/recovery/t/019_replslot_limit.pl | 217 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/regress/expected/rules.out | 6 +- 17 files changed, 595 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
-
Re: pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2020-04-07T23:26:02Z
On 2020-Apr-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > src/test/recovery/t/019_replslot_limit.pl | 217 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I fixed the perlcritic complaint from buildfarm member crake, but there's a new one in francolin: # Failed test 'check that the slot state changes to "reserved"' # at t/019_replslot_limit.pl line 125. # got: '0/15000D8|reserved|216 bytes' # expected: '0/1500000|reserved|216 bytes' # Failed test 'check that the slot state changes to "lost"' # at t/019_replslot_limit.pl line 135. # got: '0/15000D8|lost|t' # expected: '0/1500000|lost|t' # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 13. [23:07:28] t/019_replslot_limit.pl .............. where the Perl code is: $start_lsn = $node_master->lsn('write'); $node_master->wait_for_catchup($node_standby, 'replay', $start_lsn); $node_standby->stop; # Advance WAL again without checkpoint, reducing remain by 6 MB. advance_wal($node_master, 6); # Slot gets into 'reserved' state $result = $node_master->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT restart_lsn, wal_status, pg_size_pretty(restart_lsn - min_safe_lsn) as remain FROM pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name = 'rep1'"); is($result, "$start_lsn|reserved|216 bytes", 'check that the slot state changes to "reserved"'); 0xD8 is 216, so this seems to be saying that the checkpoint record was skipped by the restart_lsn. I'm not clear exactly why that happened ... is this saying that a checkpoint occurred? One easy fix would be to remove the "restart_lsn" output column from the query, but do we lose test specificity? (I think the answer is no.) However, even with that change, we're still testing that a checkpoint is 216 bytes ... in other words, whenever someone changes the definition of struct CheckPoint, this test will fail. That seems unnecessary and unfriendly. I'm not sure how to improve that without also removing that column. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -
Re: pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2020-04-08T01:13:51Z
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I fixed the perlcritic complaint from buildfarm member crake, but > there's a new one in francolin: Other buildfarm members are showing related-but-different failures. I think this test is just plain unstable. regards, tom lane
-
Re: pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2020-04-08T02:10:07Z
Hi, On April 7, 2020 6:13:51 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I fixed the perlcritic complaint from buildfarm member crake, but >> there's a new one in francolin: > >Other buildfarm members are showing related-but-different failures. >I think this test is just plain unstable. I have not looked at the source, but the error messages show LSNs and bytes. I can't really imagine how that could be made stable. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-
Re: pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-04-08T02:36:02Z
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 07:10:07PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > I have not looked at the source, but the error messages show LSNs > and bytes. I can't really imagine how that could be made stable. Another bad news is that this is page-size dependent. What if you removed pg_size_pretty() and replaced it with a condition that returns a boolean status in the result itself? -- Michael
-
Re: pgsql: Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2020-04-08T02:58:55Z
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > However, even with that change, we're still testing that a checkpoint is > 216 bytes ... in other words, whenever someone changes the definition of > struct CheckPoint, this test will fail. That seems unnecessary and > unfriendly. I'm not sure how to improve that without also removing that > column. I read florican's results as showing that sizeof(CheckPoint) is already different on 32-bit machines than 64-bit; it's repeatably getting this: # Failed test 'check that the slot state changes to "reserved"' # at t/019_replslot_limit.pl line 125. # got: '0/15000C0|reserved|192 bytes' # expected: '0/15000C0|reserved|216 bytes' This test case was *not* well thought out. regards, tom lane