Horton

Thread

  1. gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-08T18:12:48Z

    So I've been delaying moving some production boxes over to 9.0.4 from
9.0.2 because hot standby fails with:
(this is on the "hot standby" machine that connects to the master)

2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [2-1] user= LOG:  entering standby mode
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [3-1] user= DEBUG:  checkpoint record
is at 86/E5D725F0
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [4-1] user= DEBUG:  redo record is at
86/E39E8248; shutdown FALSE
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [5-1] user= DEBUG:  next transaction
ID: 0/35456371; next OID: 34090526
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [6-1] user= DEBUG:  next MultiXactId:
523; next MultiXactOffset: 1046
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [7-1] user= DEBUG:  oldest unfrozen
transaction ID: 654, in database 1
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [8-1] user= DEBUG:  transaction ID
wrap limit is 2147484301, limited by database with OID 1
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [9-1] user= DEBUG:  initializing for hot standby
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [10-1] user= LOG:  redo starts at 86/E39E8248
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6072]: [11-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E39F2010
2011-06-08 11:40:48 MDT [6074]: [1-1] user= LOG:  streaming
replication successfully connected to primary
2011-06-08 11:40:49 MDT [6072]: [12-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3A16010
2011-06-08 11:40:49 MDT [6074]: [2-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 11:40:49 MDT [6072]: [13-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3A3C010
2011-06-08 11:40:53 MDT [6072]: [14-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3A54010
2011-06-08 11:40:53 MDT [6075]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 11:40:53 MDT [6072]: [15-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3A74010
2011-06-08 11:40:58 MDT [6076]: [1-1] user= LOG:  streaming
replication successfully connected to primary
2011-06-08 11:40:59 MDT [6072]: [16-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3AC6010
2011-06-08 11:40:59 MDT [6076]: [2-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 11:40:59 MDT [6072]: [17-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3ACC010
2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6072]: [18-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/E3B32010
2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6078]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
[ repeats... ]

Originally I thought there might be some corner case bug  in 9.0.3 or
9.0.4. However after recompiling 9.0.2 with gcc 4.6 and hitting the
same problem-- I tried compiling 9.0.4 with gcc 4.5 and it seemed to
work great. I then tired various optimization levels on 4.6:
-O0: works
-O1: works
-O2: fails
-Os: works

I suppose the next step is to narrow it down to a specific flag -O2
uses... But I thought I would post here first-- maybe someone else has
hit this? Or maybe someone has a bright idea on how to narrow this
down?

# linux 2.6.39.1 x86_64 AMD opteron box
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /build/src/gcc-4.6-20110603/configure --prefix=/usr
--libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=https://bugs.archlinux.org/
--enable-languages=c,c++,ada,fortran,go,lto,objc,obj-c++
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib
--enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions
--enable-clocale=gnu --enable-gnu-unique-object
--enable-linker-build-id --with-ppl --enable-cloog-backend=isl
--enable-lto --enable-gold --enable-ld=default --enable-plugin
--with-plugin-ld=ld.gold --disable-multilib --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110603 (prerelease) (GCC)

  2. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-06-08T18:49:37Z

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> So I've been delaying moving some production boxes over to 9.0.4 from
> 2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6078]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
> walreceiver process due to administrator command
> [ repeats... ]

> I suppose the next step is to narrow it down to a specific flag -O2
> uses... But I thought I would post here first-- maybe someone else has
> hit this? Or maybe someone has a bright idea on how to narrow this
> down?

Maybe using a "prerelease" gcc version isn't such a hot idea for
production.  It's very, very, very difficult to see how the behavior you
describe isn't a compiler bug.  (Well, I could also believe that
something external is repeatedly hitting the walreceiver with a SIGTERM,
but it's hard to square that with the behavior changing when you
recompile with different -O levels ...)

It might be useful to strace the postmaster and walreceiver processes
just to see if any signal is actually being sent or received.

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-08T18:52:50Z

    On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:12, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I've been delaying moving some production boxes over to 9.0.4 from
> 9.0.2 because hot standby fails with:
> (this is on the "hot standby" machine that connects to the master)
> [ ...]
> 2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6072]: [18-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
> length at 86/E3B32010
> 2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6078]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
> walreceiver process due to administrator command
> [ repeats... ]

> [...] I then tired various optimization levels on 4.6:
> -O0: works
> -O1: works
> -O2: fails
> -Os: works

So I tracked it down to "-fgcse", that is CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-gcse"
./configure works. I then took a few guesses and compiled all of
postgres with -O2, then manually recompiled xlog.c with -f-no-gcse.
that combination seems to work.

[ One thing im not sure is why -Os works, I tried -O2 and added all
the -fno-XXX options it says -Os adds. I suppose its either they turn
off/on other optimizations the man page does not mention, or I guess
thats compiler bugs for ya ]

  4. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-08T18:58:17Z

    On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> So I've been delaying moving some production boxes over to 9.0.4 from
>> 2011-06-08 11:41:03 MDT [6078]: [1-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
>> walreceiver process due to administrator command
>> [ repeats... ]
>
>> I suppose the next step is to narrow it down to a specific flag -O2
>> uses... But I thought I would post here first-- maybe someone else has
>> hit this? Or maybe someone has a bright idea on how to narrow this
>> down?
>
> Maybe using a "prerelease" gcc version isn't such a hot idea for
> production.  It's very, very, very difficult to see how the behavior you
> describe isn't a compiler bug.

Yeah :-). However ill note it looks like its the default compiler for
fedora 15, ubuntu natty and debian sid.

> It might be useful to strace the postmaster and walreceiver processes
> just to see if any signal is actually being sent or received.

Will do.

  5. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-06-08T19:05:09Z

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> So I tracked it down to "-fgcse", that is CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-gcse"
> ./configure works. I then took a few guesses and compiled all of
> postgres with -O2, then manually recompiled xlog.c with -f-no-gcse.
> that combination seems to work.

Huh, interesting.  So the bug must be lurking somewhere around the logic
that deals with failedSources: somehow we're getting to the
ShutdownWalRcv call in XLogPageRead.

			regards, tom lane

  6. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-08T20:14:43Z

    On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:58, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It might be useful to strace the postmaster and walreceiver processes
>> just to see if any signal is actually being sent or received.
>
> Will do.

Find it attached.

Corresponding logs:
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27779]: [1-1] user= LOG:  could not create
IPv6 socket: Address family not supported by protocol
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [1-1] user= LOG:  database system was
shut down in recovery at 2011-06-08 14:00:37 MDT
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [2-1] user= LOG:  entering standby mode
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [3-1] user= DEBUG:  checkpoint record
is at 86/F6E76708
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [4-1] user= DEBUG:  redo record is at
86/F4DF9BF0; shutdown FALSE
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [5-1] user= DEBUG:  next transaction
ID: 0/35484525; next OID: 34123294
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [6-1] user= DEBUG:  next MultiXactId:
523; next MultiXactOffset: 1046
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [7-1] user= DEBUG:  oldest unfrozen
transaction ID: 654, in database 1
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [8-1] user= DEBUG:  transaction ID
wrap limit is 2147484301, limited by database with OID 1
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [9-1] user= DEBUG:  initializing for
hot standby
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [10-1] user= LOG:  redo starts at 86/F4DF9BF0
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27781]: [11-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/F4E62010
2011-06-08 14:01:21 MDT [27783]: [1-1] user= LOG:  streaming
replication successfully connected to primary
2011-06-08 14:01:22 MDT [27781]: [12-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/F4E82010
2011-06-08 14:01:24 MDT [27783]: [2-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 14:01:24 MDT [27781]: [13-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/F4EEC010
2011-06-08 14:01:26 MDT [27784]: [1-1] user= LOG:  streaming
replication successfully connected to primary
2011-06-08 14:01:26 MDT [27781]: [14-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/F4F1E010
2011-06-08 14:01:26 MDT [27784]: [2-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 14:01:26 MDT [27781]: [15-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
length at 86/F4F22010
2011-06-08 14:01:31 MDT [27785]: [1-1] user= LOG:  streaming
replication successfully connected to primary
^C2011-06-08 14:01:32 MDT [27779]: [2-1] user= LOG:  received fast
shutdown request
2011-06-08 14:01:32 MDT [27785]: [2-1] user= FATAL:  terminating
walreceiver process due to administrator command
2011-06-08 14:01:32 MDT [27782]: [1-1] user= LOG:  shutting down
2011-06-08 14:01:32 MDT [27782]: [2-1] user= LOG:  database system is shut down

  7. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-06-08T20:31:09Z

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> It might be useful to strace the postmaster and walreceiver processes
>>> just to see if any signal is actually being sent or received.

> Find it attached.

Well, the trace shows exactly what I thought was happening: each time
the startup process hits one of these:

> 2011-06-08 14:01:22 MDT [27781]: [12-1] user= LOG:  invalid record
> length at 86/F4E82010

it sends a SIGTERM to kill the walreceiver, because it thinks this
indicates a walreceiver problem.  Then we launch another one and manage
to process a few more WAL records, lather rinse repeat.

So it's interesting that this only happens with a particular gcc version,
because it's not apparent to me why it works properly for anybody.
Isn't hitting a zero record length an expected case when we run ahead of
the amount of WAL produced by the master?

			regards, tom lane

  8. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> — 2011-06-08T22:20:15Z

    On 09/06/11 06:58, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> Yeah :-). However ill note it looks like its the default compiler for
> fedora 15, ubuntu natty and debian sid.
>

FWIW Ubuntu natty uses gcc 4.5.2, probably just as as well in the light 
of your findings :-)

Cheers

Mark

  9. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-08T22:56:19Z

    On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 16:20, Mark Kirkwood
<mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> On 09/06/11 06:58, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>
>> Yeah :-). However ill note it looks like its the default compiler for
>> fedora 15, ubuntu natty and debian sid.
>>
>
> FWIW Ubuntu natty uses gcc 4.5.2, probably just as as well in the light of
> your findings :-)

Yeah I was just looking at distrowatch, its "snapshot natty" that uses
4.6.0. ubuntu 11.04 uses 4.5.2 like you said.

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu

  10. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2011-06-09T02:36:57Z

    On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So it's interesting that this only happens with a particular gcc version,
> because it's not apparent to me why it works properly for anybody.
> Isn't hitting a zero record length an expected case when we run ahead of
> the amount of WAL produced by the master?

At least while walreceiver is running, recovery doesn't go ahead of the
last receive location. So that's not an expected case.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

  11. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-06-10T18:38:57Z

    Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> writes:
> On 09/06/11 06:58, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> Yeah :-). However ill note it looks like its the default compiler for
>> fedora 15, ubuntu natty and debian sid.

> FWIW Ubuntu natty uses gcc 4.5.2, probably just as as well in the light 
> of your findings :-)

I've been able to reproduce this on released Fedora 15, and sure enough
it is a compiler bug.  The problem comes from these fragments of
ReadRecord():

ReadRecord(XLogRecPtr *RecPtr, int emode, bool fetching_ckpt)
{
    XLogRecPtr    tmpRecPtr = EndRecPtr;

    if (RecPtr == NULL)
        RecPtr = &tmpRecPtr;

    targetRecOff = RecPtr->xrecoff % XLOG_BLCKSZ;

    if (targetRecOff == 0)
        tmpRecPtr.xrecoff += pageHeaderSize;

    record = (XLogRecord *) ((char *) readBuf + RecPtr->xrecoff % XLOG_BLCKSZ);

gcc 4.6.0 is assuming that the value it first fetches for RecPtr->xrecoff
is still usable for computing the "record" pointer, despite the possible
intervening update of tmpRecPtr.  That of course leads to "record"
pointing to the wrong place, which results in an incorrect conclusion
that we're looking at an invalid record header, which leads to killing
and restarting the walreceiver.  I haven't traced what happens after
that, but apparently in standby mode we'll come back to ReadRecord with
a record pointer that's already advanced over the page header, else it'd
be an infinite loop.

Note that this means that crash recovery, not only standby mode, is
broken with this compiler.

I've filed a bug report for this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712480
but I wouldn't care to hold my breath while waiting for a fix to appear
upstream, let alone propagate to all the distros already using 4.6.0.
I think we need a workaround.

The obvious question to ask here is why are we updating
"tmpRecPtr.xrecoff" and not "RecPtr->xrecoff"?  The latter choice would
be a lot more readable, since the immediately surrounding code doesn't
refer to tmpRecPtr.  I think the idea is to guarantee that the caller's
referenced record pointer (if any) isn't modified, but if RecPtr is not
pointing at tmpRecPtr here, we have got big problems anyway.

So I'm tempted to propose this fix:

    if (targetRecOff == 0)
    {
        /*
         * Can only get here in the continuing-from-prev-page case, because
         * XRecOffIsValid eliminated the zero-page-offset case otherwise. Need
         * to skip over the new page's header.
         */
-       tmpRecPtr.xrecoff += pageHeaderSize;
+       Assert(RecPtr == &tmpRecPtr);
+       RecPtr->xrecoff += pageHeaderSize;
        targetRecOff = pageHeaderSize;
    }

Another possibility, which might be less ugly, is to delete the above
code entirely and handle the page-header case in the RecPtr == NULL
branch a few lines above.

Comments?

			regards, tom lane

  12. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-10T20:00:26Z

    On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I've been able to reproduce this on released Fedora 15, and sure enough
> it is a compiler bug.  The problem comes from these fragments of
> ReadRecord():
> [ ... ]

Whoa, awesome. I spent a few more hours comparing the assembly-- then
I tried compiling a subset of xlog.c with some educated guesses as to
what function might be getting mis-compiled. Obviously my guesses were
not educated enough! :-)

> I've filed a bug report for this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712480
> but I wouldn't care to hold my breath while waiting for a fix to appear
> upstream, let alone propagate to all the distros already using 4.6.0.

I wouldn't hold my breath either.

> I think we need a workaround.
>
> The obvious question to ask here is why are we updating
> "tmpRecPtr.xrecoff" and not "RecPtr->xrecoff"?  The latter choice would
> be a lot more readable, since the immediately surrounding code doesn't
> refer to tmpRecPtr.  I think the idea is to guarantee that the caller's
> referenced record pointer (if any) isn't modified, but if RecPtr is not
> pointing at tmpRecPtr here, we have got big problems anyway.

Hrm, Couldn't we change all the references to tmpRecPtr to use RecPtr
instead? (Except of course where we assign RecPtr = &tmpRecPtr); I
think that would make the code look a lot less confused. Something
like the attached?

FYI Im happy to test whatever you fix you propose for a few days on
this machine. It gets a fair amount of traffic... hopefully enough to
exercise some possible corner cases.

  13. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-06-10T20:24:11Z

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think we need a workaround.

My second idea about moving the test up doesn't work, because we can't
know the page header size until after we've read the page.  But I've
verified that the attached patch does make the problem go away on my
F15 box.

> Hrm, Couldn't we change all the references to tmpRecPtr to use RecPtr
> instead? (Except of course where we assign RecPtr = &tmpRecPtr); I
> think that would make the code look a lot less confused. Something
> like the attached?

Yeah, we could do that too; slightly modified version of your change
included in the attached.

			regards, tom lane

  14. Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby

    Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> — 2011-06-10T20:51:42Z

    On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:

>> Hrm, Couldn't we change all the references to tmpRecPtr to use RecPtr
>> instead? (Except of course where we assign RecPtr = &tmpRecPtr); I
>> think that would make the code look a lot less confused. Something
>> like the attached?
>
> Yeah, we could do that too; slightly modified version of your change
> included in the attached.

A cassert enabled build seems to be working, ill leave it running over
the weekend...