Horton

Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com>, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-04-04T13:20:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Try to avoid compiler warnings in optimized builds.

  2. Fix option related issues in pg_verifybackup.

  3. Add index term for backup manifest in documentation.

  4. Code review for backup manifest.

  5. Document the backup manifest file format.

  6. Fix typo in pg_validatebackup documentation.

  7. Exclude backup_manifest file that existed in database, from BASE_BACKUP.

  8. Msys2 tweaks for pg_validatebackup corruption test

  9. Fix resource management bug with replication=database.

  10. Be more careful about time_t vs. pg_time_t in basebackup.c.

  11. pg_validatebackup: Fix 'make clean' to remove tmp_check.

  12. pg_validatebackup: Also use perl2host in TAP tests.

  13. Generate backup manifests for base backups, and validate them.

  14. Add checksum helper functions.

  15. pg_waldump: Add a --quiet option.

  16. Catversion bump for b9b408c48724

  17. pg_basebackup: Refactor code for reading COPY and tar data.

  18. Use a ResourceOwner to track buffer pins in all cases.

  19. Use ARMv8 CRC instructions where available.

  20. Logical replication support for initial data copy

  21. Use Intel SSE 4.2 CRC instructions where available.

  22. Switch to CRC-32C in WAL and other places.

  23. Remove support for 64-bit CRC.

  24. Change CRCs in WAL records from 64bit to 32bit for performance reasons.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:06 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2020-04-03 20:48:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 'serinus' is also failing. This is less obviously related:
>
> Hm. Tests passed once since then.

Yeah, but conchuela also failed once in what I think was a similar
way. I suspect the fix I pushed last night
(3e0d80fd8d3dd4f999e0d3aa3e591f480d8ad1fd) may have been enough to
clear this up.

> That already seems suspicious. I checked the following (successful) run
> and I did not see that in the stage's logs.

Yeah, the behavior of the test case doesn't seem to be entirely deterministic.

> I, again, have to say that the amount of stuff that was done as part of
>
> commit 7c4f52409a8c7d85ed169bbbc1f6092274d03920
> Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
> Date:   2017-03-23 08:36:36 -0400
>
>     Logical replication support for initial data copy
>
> is insane. Adding support for running sql over replication connections
> and extending CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT with new options (without even
> mentioning that in the commit message!) as part of a commit described as
> "Logical replication support for initial data copy" shouldn't happen.

I agreed then and still do.

> So I'm a bit confused here. The best approach is probably to try to
> reproduce this by adding an artifical delay into backend shutdown.

I was able to reproduce an assertion failure by starting a
transaction, running a replication command that failed, and then
exiting the backend. 3e0d80fd8d3dd4f999e0d3aa3e591f480d8ad1fd made
that go away. I had wrongly assumed that there was no other way for a
walsender to have a ResourceOwner, and in the face of SQL commands
also being executed by walsenders, that's clearly not true. I'm not
sure *precisely* how that lead to the BF failures, but it was really
clear that it was wrong.

> > (I still really dislike the fact that we have this evil hack allowing
> > one connection to mix and match those sets of commands...)
>
> FWIW, I think the opposite. We should get rid of the difference as much
> as possible.

Well, that's another approach. It's OK to have one system and it's OK
to have two systems, but one and a half is not ideal.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company