Thread

1. POSIX shared memory redux

   A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2010-11-14T00:48:57Z

   The goal of this work is to address all of the shortcomings of previous POSIX shared memory patches as pointed out mostly by Tom Lane.
   
   Branch: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/agentm/postgresql.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/posix_shmem
   Main file: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/agentm/postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/backend/port/posix_shmem.c;h=da93848d14eeadb182d8bf1fe576d741ae5792c3;hb=refs/heads/posix_shmem
   
   Design goals:
   1) ensure that shared memory creation collisions are impossible 
   2) ensure that shared memory access collisions are impossible
   3) ensure proper shared memory cleanup after backend and postmaster close
   4) minimize API changes
   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00527.php
   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00558.php
   
   This patch addresses the above goals and offers some benefits over SysV shared memory:
   
   1) no kern.sysv management (one documentation page with platform-specific help can disappear)
   2) shared memory allocation limited only by mmap usage
   3) shared memory regions are completely cleaned up when the postmaster and all of its children are exited or killed for any reason (including SIGKILL)
   4) shared memory creation race conditions or collisions between postmasters or backends are impossible
   5) after postmaster startup, the postmaster becomes the sole arbiter of which other processes are granted access to the shared memory region 
   6) mmap and munmap can be used on the shared memory region- this may be useful for offering the option to expand the memory region dynamically
   
   The design goals are accomplished by a simple change in shared memory creation: after shm_open, the region name is immediately shm_unlink'd. Because POSIX shared memory relies on file descriptors, the shared memory is not deallocated in the kernel until the last referencing file descriptor is closed (in this case, on process exit). The postmaster then becomes the sole arbiter of passing the shared memory file descriptor (either through children or through file descriptor passing, if necessary).
   
   The patch is a reworked version of Chris Marcellino <cmarcellino@apple.com>'s patch.
   
   Details:
   
   1) the shared memory name is based on getpid()- this ensures that no two starting postmasters (or other processes) will attempt to acquire the same shared memory segment.
   2) the shared memory segment is created and immediately unlinked, preventing outside access to the shared memory region
   3) the shared memory file descriptor is passed to backends via static int file descriptor (normal file descriptor inheritance)
   	* perhaps there is a better location to store the file descriptor- advice welcomed.
   4) shared memory segment detach occurs when the process exits (kernel-based cleanup instead of scheduled in-process clean up)
   
   Additional notes:
   The "feature" whereby arbitrary postgres user processes could connect to the shared memory segment has been removed with this patch. If this is a desirable feature (perhaps for debugging or performance tools), this could be added by implementing a file descriptor passing server in the postmaster which would use SCM_RIGHTS control message passing to a) verify that the remote process is running as the same user as the postmaster b) pass the shared memory file descriptor to the process. I am happy to implement this, if required.
   
   I am happy to continue work on this patch if the pg-hackers deem it worthwhile. Thanks!
   
   Cheers,
   M
   
   
   
   

2. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-11-14T01:07:52Z

   "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
   > The goal of this work is to address all of the shortcomings of previous POSIX shared memory patches as pointed out mostly by Tom Lane.
   
   It seems like you've failed to understand the main shortcoming of this
   whole idea, which is the loss of ability to detect pre-existing backends
   still running in a cluster whose postmaster has crashed.  The nattch
   variable of SysV shmem segments is really pretty critical to us, and
   AFAIK there simply is no substitute for it in POSIX-land.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> — 2010-11-14T15:06:39Z

   On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:07:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
   > "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
   > > The goal of this work is to address all of the shortcomings of previous POSIX shared memory patches as pointed out mostly by Tom Lane.
   > 
   > It seems like you've failed to understand the main shortcoming of this
   > whole idea, which is the loss of ability to detect pre-existing backends
   > still running in a cluster whose postmaster has crashed.  The nattch
   > variable of SysV shmem segments is really pretty critical to us, and
   > AFAIK there simply is no substitute for it in POSIX-land.
   
   I've been looking and there really doesn't appear to be. This is
   consistant as there is nothing else in POSIX where you can determine
   how many other people have the same file, pipe, tty, etc open.
   
   I asked a few people for ideas and got answers like: just walk through
   /proc and check. Apart from the portability issues, this won't work if
   there are different user-IDs in play.
   
   The only real solution seems to me to be to keep a small SysV shared
   memory segment for the locking and allocate the rest of the shared
   memory some other way. If all backends map the SysV memory before the
   other way, then you can use the non-existance of the SysV SHM to
   determine the non-existance of the other segment.
   
   Quite a bit more work, ISTM.
   
   Haveva nice day,
   -- 
   Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
   > Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism,
   > when hate for people other than your own comes first. 
   >                                       - Charles de Gaulle
   

4. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-11-14T16:06:51Z

   Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
   > The only real solution seems to me to be to keep a small SysV shared
   > memory segment for the locking and allocate the rest of the shared
   > memory some other way.
   
   Yeah, that's been discussed.  It throws all the portability gains out
   the window.  It might get you out from under the need to readjust a
   machine's SHMMAX setting before you can use a large amount of shared
   memory, but it's not clear that's enough of a win to be worth the
   trouble.
   
   The other direction that we could possibly go is to find some other way
   entirely of interlocking access to the data directory.  If for example
   we could rely on a file lock held by the postmaster and all backends,
   we could check that instead of having to rely on a shmem behavior.
   The killer objection to that so far is that file locking is unreliable
   in some environments, particularly NFS.  But it'd have some advantages
   too --- in particular, in the NFS context, the fact that the lock is
   visible to would-be postmasters on different machines might be thought
   a huge safety improvement over what we do now.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

5. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-11-14T18:37:32Z

   On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
   >> The only real solution seems to me to be to keep a small SysV shared
   >> memory segment for the locking and allocate the rest of the shared
   >> memory some other way.
   >
   > Yeah, that's been discussed.  It throws all the portability gains out
   > the window.  It might get you out from under the need to readjust a
   > machine's SHMMAX setting before you can use a large amount of shared
   > memory, but it's not clear that's enough of a win to be worth the
   > trouble.
   
   One of the things that would be really nice to be able to do is resize
   our shm after startup, in response to changes in configuration
   parameters.  That's not so easy to make work, of course, but I feel
   like this might be going in the right direction, since POSIX shms can
   be resized using ftruncate().
   
   > The other direction that we could possibly go is to find some other way
   > entirely of interlocking access to the data directory.  If for example
   > we could rely on a file lock held by the postmaster and all backends,
   > we could check that instead of having to rely on a shmem behavior.
   > The killer objection to that so far is that file locking is unreliable
   > in some environments, particularly NFS.  But it'd have some advantages
   > too --- in particular, in the NFS context, the fact that the lock is
   > visible to would-be postmasters on different machines might be thought
   > a huge safety improvement over what we do now.
   
   I've never had a lot of luck making filesystem locks work reliably,
   but I don't discount the possibility that I was doing it wrong.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
   
   

6. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-11T00:03:56Z

   Hello,
   
   Based on feedback from Tom Lane and Robert Haas, I have amended the POSIX shared memory patch to account for multiple-postmaster start race conditions (which is currently based on SysV shared memory checks).
   
   https://github.com/agentm/postgres/tree/posix_shmem
   

7. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-04-11T22:06:19Z

   On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
   > To ensure that no two postmasters can startup in the same data directory, I use fcntl range locking on the data directory lock file, which also works properly on (properly configured) NFS volumes. Whenever a postmaster or postmaster child starts, it acquires a read (non-exclusive) lock on the data directory's lock file. When a new postmaster starts, it queries if anything would block a write (exclusive) lock on the lock file which returns a lock-holding PID in the case when other postgresql processes are running.
   
   This seems a lot leakier than what we do now (imagine, for example,
   shared storage) and I'm not sure what the advantage is.  I was
   imagining keeping some portion of the data in sysv shm, and moving the
   big stuff to a POSIX shm that would operate alongside it.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
   
   

8. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-11T22:11:04Z

   On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
   
   > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
   >> To ensure that no two postmasters can startup in the same data directory, I use fcntl range locking on the data directory lock file, which also works properly on (properly configured) NFS volumes. Whenever a postmaster or postmaster child starts, it acquires a read (non-exclusive) lock on the data directory's lock file. When a new postmaster starts, it queries if anything would block a write (exclusive) lock on the lock file which returns a lock-holding PID in the case when other postgresql processes are running.
   > 
   > This seems a lot leakier than what we do now (imagine, for example,
   > shared storage) and I'm not sure what the advantage is.  I was
   > imagining keeping some portion of the data in sysv shm, and moving the
   > big stuff to a POSIX shm that would operate alongside it.
   
   What do you mean by "leakier"? The goal here is to extinguish SysV shared memory for portability and convenience benefits. The mini-SysV proposal was implemented and shot down by Tom Lane.
   
   Cheers,
   M
   

9. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-04-11T22:16:16Z

   On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
   >
   > On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
   >
   >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
   >>> To ensure that no two postmasters can startup in the same data directory, I use fcntl range locking on the data directory lock file, which also works properly on (properly configured) NFS volumes. Whenever a postmaster or postmaster child starts, it acquires a read (non-exclusive) lock on the data directory's lock file. When a new postmaster starts, it queries if anything would block a write (exclusive) lock on the lock file which returns a lock-holding PID in the case when other postgresql processes are running.
   >>
   >> This seems a lot leakier than what we do now (imagine, for example,
   >> shared storage) and I'm not sure what the advantage is.  I was
   >> imagining keeping some portion of the data in sysv shm, and moving the
   >> big stuff to a POSIX shm that would operate alongside it.
   >
   > What do you mean by "leakier"? The goal here is to extinguish SysV shared memory for portability and convenience benefits. The mini-SysV proposal was implemented and shot down by Tom Lane.
   
   I mean I'm not convinced that fcntl() locking will be as reliable.
   
   I know Tom shot that down before, but I still think it's probably the
   best way forward.  The advantage I see is that we would be able to
   more easily allocate larger chunks of shared memory with changing
   kernel parameters, and perhaps even to dynamically resize shared
   memory chunks.  That'd be worth the price of admission even if we
   didn't get all those benefits in one commit.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
   
   

10. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-04-11T23:13:24Z

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >> What do you mean by "leakier"? The goal here is to extinguish SysV shared memory for portability and convenience benefits. The mini-SysV proposal was implemented and shot down by Tom Lane.
    
    > I mean I'm not convinced that fcntl() locking will be as reliable.
    
    I'm not either.  Particularly not on NFS.  (Although on NFS you have
    other issues to worry about too, like postmasters on different machines
    being able to reach the same data directory.  I wonder if we should do
    both SysV and fcntl locking ...)
    
    > I know Tom shot that down before, but I still think it's probably the
    > best way forward.
    
    Did I?  I think I pointed out that there's zero gain in portability as
    long as we still depend on SysV shmem to work.  However, if you're doing
    it for other reasons than portability, it might make sense anyway.  The
    question is whether there are adequate other reasons.
    
    > The advantage I see is that we would be able to
    > more easily allocate larger chunks of shared memory with changing
    > kernel parameters,
    
    Yes, getting out from under the SHMMAX bugaboo would be awfully nice.
    
    > and perhaps even to dynamically resize shared memory chunks.
    
    This I don't really believe will ever work reliably, especially not in
    32-bit machines.  Whatever your kernel API is, you still have the
    problem of finding address space contiguous to what you were already
    using.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

11. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-04-11T23:25:06Z

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >> To ensure that no two postmasters can startup in the same data directory, I use fcntl range locking on the data directory lock file, which also works properly on (properly configured) NFS volumes. Whenever a postmaster or postmaster child starts, it acquires a read (non-exclusive) lock on the data directory's lock file. When a new postmaster starts, it queries if anything would block a write (exclusive) lock on the lock file which returns a lock-holding PID in the case when other postgresql processes are running.
    
    > This seems a lot leakier than what we do now (imagine, for example,
    > shared storage) and I'm not sure what the advantage is.
    
    BTW, the above-described solution flat out doesn't work anyway, because
    it has a race condition.  Postmaster children have to reacquire the lock
    after forking, because fcntl locks aren't inherited during fork().  And
    that means you can't tell whether there's a just-started backend that
    hasn't yet acquired the lock.  It's really critical for our purposes
    that SysV shmem segments are inherited at fork() and so there's no
    window where a just-forked backend isn't visible to somebody checking
    the state of the shmem segment.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

12. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-11T23:29:41Z

    On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >>> To ensure that no two postmasters can startup in the same data directory, I use fcntl range locking on the data directory lock file, which also works properly on (properly configured) NFS volumes. Whenever a postmaster or postmaster child starts, it acquires a read (non-exclusive) lock on the data directory's lock file. When a new postmaster starts, it queries if anything would block a write (exclusive) lock on the lock file which returns a lock-holding PID in the case when other postgresql processes are running.
    > 
    >> This seems a lot leakier than what we do now (imagine, for example,
    >> shared storage) and I'm not sure what the advantage is.
    > 
    > BTW, the above-described solution flat out doesn't work anyway, because
    > it has a race condition.  Postmaster children have to reacquire the lock
    > after forking, because fcntl locks aren't inherited during fork().  And
    > that means you can't tell whether there's a just-started backend that
    > hasn't yet acquired the lock.  It's really critical for our purposes
    > that SysV shmem segments are inherited at fork() and so there's no
    > window where a just-forked backend isn't visible to somebody checking
    > the state of the shmem segment.
    
    Then you haven't looked at my patch because I address this race condition by ensuring that a lock-holding violator is the postmaster or a postmaster child. If such as condition is detected, the child exits immediately without touching the shared memory. POSIX shmem is inherited via file descriptors.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    

13. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-11T23:30:01Z

    On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >>> What do you mean by "leakier"? The goal here is to extinguish SysV shared memory for portability and convenience benefits. The mini-SysV proposal was implemented and shot down by Tom Lane.
    > 
    >> I mean I'm not convinced that fcntl() locking will be as reliable.
    > 
    > I'm not either.  Particularly not on NFS.  (Although on NFS you have
    > other issues to worry about too, like postmasters on different machines
    > being able to reach the same data directory.  I wonder if we should do
    > both SysV and fcntl locking ...)
    
    Is there an example of a recent system where fcntl is broken (ignoring NFS)? I believe my patch addresses all potential race conditions and uses the APIs properly to guarantee single-postmaster data directory usage and I tested on Darwin and a two-year-old Linux kernel. In the end, fcntl locking relies on the same kernel which provides the SysV user count, so I'm not sure what makes it less "reliable", but I have heard that twice now, so I am open to hearing about your experiences.
    
    >> I know Tom shot that down before, but I still think it's probably the
    >> best way forward.
    > 
    > Did I?  I think I pointed out that there's zero gain in portability as
    > long as we still depend on SysV shmem to work.  However, if you're doing
    > it for other reasons than portability, it might make sense anyway.  The
    > question is whether there are adequate other reasons.
    
    I provided an example of postmaster-failover relying on F_SETLKW in the email with the patch. Also, as you point out above, fcntl locking at least has a chance of working over NFS.
    
    > 
    >> The advantage I see is that we would be able to
    >> more easily allocate larger chunks of shared memory with changing
    >> kernel parameters,
    > 
    > Yes, getting out from under the SHMMAX bugaboo would be awfully nice.
    
    Yes, please! That is my primary motivation for this patch.
    
    > 
    >> and perhaps even to dynamically resize shared memory chunks.
    > 
    > This I don't really believe will ever work reliably, especially not in
    > 32-bit machines.  Whatever your kernel API is, you still have the
    > problem of finding address space contiguous to what you were already
    > using.
    
    Even if expanding shmem involves copying large regions of memory, it could be at least useful to adjust buffer sizes live without a restart.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    
    
    

14. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-04-13T06:06:11Z

    "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
    > On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    >>> I mean I'm not convinced that fcntl() locking will be as reliable.
    
    >> I'm not either.  Particularly not on NFS.
    
    > Is there an example of a recent system where fcntl is broken (ignoring NFS)?
    
    Well, the fundamental point is that "ignoring NFS" is not the real
    world.  We can't tell people not to put data directories on NFS,
    and even if we did tell them not to, they'd still do it.  And NFS
    locking is not trustworthy, because the remote lock daemon can crash
    and restart (forgetting everything it ever knew) while your own machine
    and the postmaster remain blissfully awake.
    
    None of this is to say that an fcntl lock might not be a useful addition
    to what we do already.  It is to say that fcntl can't just replace what
    we do already, because there are real-world failure cases that the
    current solution handles and fcntl alone wouldn't.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

15. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-13T14:20:06Z

    On Apr 13, 2011, at 2:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
    >> On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    >>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    >>>> I mean I'm not convinced that fcntl() locking will be as reliable.
    > 
    >>> I'm not either.  Particularly not on NFS.
    > 
    >> Is there an example of a recent system where fcntl is broken (ignoring NFS)?
    > 
    > Well, the fundamental point is that "ignoring NFS" is not the real
    > world.  We can't tell people not to put data directories on NFS,
    > and even if we did tell them not to, they'd still do it.  And NFS
    > locking is not trustworthy, because the remote lock daemon can crash
    > and restart (forgetting everything it ever knew) while your own machine
    > and the postmaster remain blissfully awake.
    > 
    > None of this is to say that an fcntl lock might not be a useful addition
    > to what we do already.  It is to say that fcntl can't just replace what
    > we do already, because there are real-world failure cases that the
    > current solution handles and fcntl alone wouldn't.
    
    
    The goal of this patch is to eliminate SysV shared memory, not to implement NFS-capable locking which, as you point out, is virtually impossible.
    
    As far as I can tell, in the worst case, my patch does not change how postgresql handles the NFS case. SysV shared memory won't work across NFS, so that interlock won't catch, so postgresql is left with looking at a lock file with PID of process on another machine, so that won't catch either. This patch does not alter the lock file semantics, but merely augments the file with file locking.
    
    At least with this patch, there is a chance the lock might work across NFS. In the best case, it can allow for shared-storage postgresql failover, which is a new feature.
    
    Furthermore, there is an improvement in shared memory handling in that it is unlinked immediately after creation, so only the postmaster and its children have access to it (through file descriptor inheritance). This means shared memory cannot be stomped on by any other process.
    
    Considering that possibly working NFS locking is a side-effect of this patch and not its goal and, in the worst possible scenario, it doesn't change current behavior, I don't see how this can be a ding against this patch.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    

16. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-04-14T00:36:44Z

    On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:20 AM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    > The goal of this patch is to eliminate SysV shared memory, not to implement NFS-capable locking which, as you point out, is virtually impossible.
    >
    > As far as I can tell, in the worst case, my patch does not change how postgresql handles the NFS case. SysV shared memory won't work across NFS, so that interlock won't catch, so postgresql is left with looking at a lock file with PID of process on another machine, so that won't catch either. This patch does not alter the lock file semantics, but merely augments the file with file locking.
    >
    > At least with this patch, there is a chance the lock might work across NFS. In the best case, it can allow for shared-storage postgresql failover, which is a new feature.
    >
    > Furthermore, there is an improvement in shared memory handling in that it is unlinked immediately after creation, so only the postmaster and its children have access to it (through file descriptor inheritance). This means shared memory cannot be stomped on by any other process.
    >
    > Considering that possibly working NFS locking is a side-effect of this patch and not its goal and, in the worst possible scenario, it doesn't change current behavior, I don't see how this can be a ding against this patch.
    
    I don't see why we need to get rid of SysV shared memory; needing less
    of it seems just as good.
    
    In answer to your off-list question, one of the principle ways I've
    seen fcntl() locking fall over and die is when someone removes the
    lock file.  You might think that this could be avoided by picking
    something important like pg_control as the log file, but it turns out
    that doesn't really work:
    
    http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
    
    Tom's point is valid too.  Many storage appliances present themselves
    as an NFS server, so it's very plausible for the data directory to be
    on an NFS server, and there's no guarantee that flock() won't be
    broken there.  If our current interlock were known to be unreliable
    also maybe we wouldn't care very much, but AFAICT it's been extremely
    robust.
    
    -- 
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
    
    

17. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-04-14T01:09:43Z

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
    > In answer to your off-list question, one of the principle ways I've
    > seen fcntl() locking fall over and die is when someone removes the
    > lock file.  You might think that this could be avoided by picking
    > something important like pg_control as the log file, but it turns out
    > that doesn't really work:
    
    > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
    
    Hm, I wasn't aware of the fact that you lose an fcntl() lock if you
    close a *different* file descriptor for the same file.  My goodness,
    that's horrid :-(.  It basically means that any third-party code running
    in a backend could accidentally defeat the locking, and most of the time
    you'd never even know it had happened ... as opposed to what would
    happen if you detached from shmem for instance.  You could run with such
    code for years, and probably never know why sometimes the interlock
    failed to work when you needed it to.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

18. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-14T01:11:43Z

    On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
    > 
    > I don't see why we need to get rid of SysV shared memory; needing less
    > of it seems just as good.
    
    1. As long one keeps SysV shared memory around, the postgresql project has to maintain the annoying platform-specific document on how to configure the poorly named kernel parameters. If the SysV region is very small, that means I can run more postgresql instances within the same kernel limits, but one can still hit the limits. My patch allows the postgresql project to delete that page and the hassles with it.
    
    2. My patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary. Are you attached to it? (Pun intended.)
    
    > 
    > In answer to your off-list question, one of the principle ways I've
    > seen fcntl() locking fall over and die is when someone removes the
    > lock file.  You might think that this could be avoided by picking
    > something important like pg_control as the log file, but it turns out
    > that doesn't really work:
    > 
    > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
    > 
    > Tom's point is valid too.  Many storage appliances present themselves
    > as an NFS server, so it's very plausible for the data directory to be
    > on an NFS server, and there's no guarantee that flock() won't be
    > broken there.  If our current interlock were known to be unreliable
    > also maybe we wouldn't care very much, but AFAICT it's been extremely
    > robust.
    
    Both you and Tom have somehow assumed that the patch alters current postgresql behavior. In fact, the opposite is true. I haven't changed any of the existing behavior. The "robust" behavior remains. I merely added fcntl interlocking on top of the lock file to replace the SysV shmem check. If someone deletes the postgresql lock file over NFS, the data directory is equally screwed, but with my patch there is chance that two machines sharing a properly-configured NFS mount can properly interlock- postgresql cannot offer that today, so this is a feature upgrade with no loss. The worst case scenario is today's behavior.
    
    My original goal remains to implement POSIX shared memory, but Tom Lane was right to point out that the current interlocking check relies on SysV, so, even though the startup locking is really orthogonal to shared memory, I implemented what could be considered a separate patch for that and rolled it into one.
    
    I would encourage you to take a look at the patch.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    

19. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-04-14T01:30:50Z

    On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >> I don't see why we need to get rid of SysV shared memory; needing less
    >> of it seems just as good.
    >
    > 1. As long one keeps SysV shared memory around, the postgresql project has to maintain the annoying platform-specific document on how to configure the poorly named kernel parameters. If the SysV region is very small, that means I can run more postgresql instances within the same kernel limits, but one can still hit the limits. My patch allows the postgresql project to delete that page and the hassles with it.
    >
    > 2. My patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary. Are you attached to it? (Pun intended.)
    
    With all due respect, I think this is an unproductive conversation.
    Your patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary only if we also
    agree that fcntl() locking is just as reliable as the nattch
    interlock, and Tom and I are trying to explain why we don't believe
    that's the case.  Saying that we're just wrong without responding to
    our points substantively doesn't move the conversation forward.
    
    In case it's not clear, here again is what we're concerned about: A
    System V shm *cannot* be removed until nobody is attached to it.  A
    lock file can be removed, or the lock can be accidentally released by
    the apparently innocuous operation of closing a file descriptor.
    
    > Both you and Tom have somehow assumed that the patch alters current postgresql behavior. In fact, the opposite is true. I haven't changed any of the existing behavior. The "robust" behavior remains. I merely added fcntl interlocking on top of the lock file to replace the SysV shmem check.
    
    This seems contradictory.  If you replaced the SysV shmem check, then
    it's not there, which means you altered the behavior.
    
    -- 
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
    
    

20. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-04-14T03:37:52Z

    "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
    > 1. As long one keeps SysV shared memory around, the postgresql project
    > has to maintain the annoying platform-specific document on how to
    > configure the poorly named kernel parameters.
    
    No, if it's just a small area, I don't see that that's an issue.
    You're going to max out on other things (like I/O bandwidth) long before
    you run into the limit on how many postmasters you can have from this.
    The reason that those parameters are problematic now is that people tend
    to want *large* shmem segments and the typical defaults aren't friendly
    to that.
    
    > 2. My patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary. Are you attached to it? (Pun intended.)
    
    You were losing this argument already, but ad hominem attacks are pretty
    much guaranteed to get people to tune you out.  There are real,
    substantive, unfixable reasons to not trust fcntl locking completely.
    
    > I would encourage you to take a look at the patch.
    
    Just to be perfectly clear: I have not read your patch, and am not
    likely to before the next commitfest starts, because I have
    approximately forty times too many things to do already.  I'm just going
    off your own abbreviated description of the patch.  But from what I know
    about fcntl locking, it's not a sufficient substitute for the SysV shmem
    interlock, because it has failure modes that the SysV interlock doesn't,
    and those failure modes occur in real-world cases.  Yeah, it'd be nice
    to also be able to lock against other postmasters on other NFS clients,
    but we hardly ever hear of somebody getting burnt by the lack of that
    (and fcntl wouldn't be a bulletproof defense anyway).  On the other
    hand, accidentally trying to start a duplicate postmaster on the same
    machine is an everyday occurrence.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

21. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> — 2011-04-14T12:22:00Z

    * Tom Lane:
    
    > Well, the fundamental point is that "ignoring NFS" is not the real
    > world.  We can't tell people not to put data directories on NFS,
    > and even if we did tell them not to, they'd still do it.  And NFS
    > locking is not trustworthy, because the remote lock daemon can crash
    > and restart (forgetting everything it ever knew) while your own machine
    > and the postmaster remain blissfully awake.
    
    Is this still the case with NFSv4?  Does the local daemon still keep
    the lock state?
    
    > None of this is to say that an fcntl lock might not be a useful addition
    > to what we do already.  It is to say that fcntl can't just replace what
    > we do already, because there are real-world failure cases that the
    > current solution handles and fcntl alone wouldn't.
    
    If it requires NFS misbehavior (possibly in an older version), and you
    have to start postmasters on separate nodes (which you normally
    wouldn't do), doesn't this make it increasingly unlikely that it's
    going to be triggered in the wild?
    
    -- 
    Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
    BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
    Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
    D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99
    
    

22. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-14T14:26:33Z

    On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
    
    > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    >>> I don't see why we need to get rid of SysV shared memory; needing less
    >>> of it seems just as good.
    >> 
    >> 1. As long one keeps SysV shared memory around, the postgresql project has to maintain the annoying platform-specific document on how to configure the poorly named kernel parameters. If the SysV region is very small, that means I can run more postgresql instances within the same kernel limits, but one can still hit the limits. My patch allows the postgresql project to delete that page and the hassles with it.
    >> 
    >> 2. My patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary. Are you attached to it? (Pun intended.)
    > 
    > With all due respect, I think this is an unproductive conversation.
    > Your patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary only if we also
    > agree that fcntl() locking is just as reliable as the nattch
    > interlock, and Tom and I are trying to explain why we don't believe
    > that's the case.  Saying that we're just wrong without responding to
    > our points substantively doesn't move the conversation forward.
    
    Sorry- it wasn't meant to be an attack- just a dumb pun. I am trying to argue that, even if the fcntl is unreliable, the startup procedure is just as reliable as it is now. The reasons being:
    
    1) the SysV nattch method's primary purpose is to protect the shmem region. This is no longer necessary in my patch because the shared memory in unlinked immediately after creation, so only the initial postmaster and its children have access.
    
    2) the standard postgresql lock file remains the same
    
    Furthermore, there is indeed a case where the SysV nattch cannot work while the fcntl locking can indeed catch: if two separate machines have a postgresql data directory mounted over NFS, postgresql will currently allow both machines to start a postmaster in that directory because the SysV nattch check fails and then the pid in the lock file is the pid on the first machine, so postgresql will say "starting anyway". With fcntl locking, this can be fixed. SysV only has presence on one kernel.
    
    
    > 
    > In case it's not clear, here again is what we're concerned about: A
    > System V shm *cannot* be removed until nobody is attached to it.  A
    > lock file can be removed, or the lock can be accidentally released by
    > the apparently innocuous operation of closing a file descriptor.
    > 
    >> Both you and Tom have somehow assumed that the patch alters current postgresql behavior. In fact, the opposite is true. I haven't changed any of the existing behavior. The "robust" behavior remains. I merely added fcntl interlocking on top of the lock file to replace the SysV shmem check.
    > 
    > This seems contradictory.  If you replaced the SysV shmem check, then
    > it's not there, which means you altered the behavior.
    
    From what I understood, the primary purpose of the SysV check was to protect the shared memory from multiple stompers. The interlock was a neat side-effect. 
    
    The lock file contents are currently important to get the pid of a potential, conflicting postmaster. With the fcntl API, we can return a live conflicting PID (whether a postmaster or a stuck child), so that's an improvement. This could be used, for example, for STONITH, to reliably kill a dying replication clone- just loop on the pids returned from the lock.
    
    Even if the fcntl check passes, the pid in the lock file is checked, so the lock file behavior remains the same.
    
    If you were to implement a daemon with a shared data directory but no shared memory, how would implement the interlock? Would you still insist on SysV shmem? Unix daemons generally rely on lock files alone. Perhaps there is a different API on which we can agree.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    

23. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-14T14:34:14Z

    On Apr 14, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
    
    > * Tom Lane:
    > 
    >> Well, the fundamental point is that "ignoring NFS" is not the real
    >> world.  We can't tell people not to put data directories on NFS,
    >> and even if we did tell them not to, they'd still do it.  And NFS
    >> locking is not trustworthy, because the remote lock daemon can crash
    >> and restart (forgetting everything it ever knew) while your own machine
    >> and the postmaster remain blissfully awake.
    > 
    > Is this still the case with NFSv4?  Does the local daemon still keep
    > the lock state?
    
    The lock handling has been fixed in NFSv4.
    
    http://nfs.sourceforge.net/
    "NFS Version 4 introduces support for byte-range locking and share reservation. Locking in NFS Version 4 is lease-based, so an NFS Version 4 client must maintain contact with an NFS Version 4 server to continue extending its open and lock leases."
    
    http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock
    "flock(2) does not lock files over NFS. Use fcntl(2) instead: that does work over NFS, given a sufficiently recent version of Linux and a server which supports locking."
    
    I would need some more time to dig up what "recent version of Linux" specifies, but NFSv4 is likely required.
    
    > 
    >> None of this is to say that an fcntl lock might not be a useful addition
    >> to what we do already.  It is to say that fcntl can't just replace what
    >> we do already, because there are real-world failure cases that the
    >> current solution handles and fcntl alone wouldn't.
    > 
    > If it requires NFS misbehavior (possibly in an older version), and you
    > have to start postmasters on separate nodes (which you normally
    > wouldn't do), doesn't this make it increasingly unlikely that it's
    > going to be triggered in the wild?
    
    With the patch I offer, it would be possible to use shared storage and failover postgresql nodes on different machines over NFS. (The second postmaster blocks and waits for the lock to be released.) Obviously, such as a setup isn't as strong as using replication, but given a sufficiently fail-safe shared storage setup, it could be made reliable.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    
    
    
    

24. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> — 2011-04-14T14:47:55Z

    On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > "A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
    >> 1. As long one keeps SysV shared memory around, the postgresql project
    >> has to maintain the annoying platform-specific document on how to
    >> configure the poorly named kernel parameters.
    > 
    > No, if it's just a small area, I don't see that that's an issue.
    > You're going to max out on other things (like I/O bandwidth) long before
    > you run into the limit on how many postmasters you can have from this.
    > The reason that those parameters are problematic now is that people tend
    > to want *large* shmem segments and the typical defaults aren't friendly
    > to that.
    
    That's assuming that no other processes on the system are using up the available segments (such as older postgresql instances).
    
    
    >> 2. My patch proves that SysV is wholly unnecessary. Are you attached to it? (Pun intended.)
    > 
    > You were losing this argument already, but ad hominem attacks are pretty
    > much guaranteed to get people to tune you out.  
    
    I apologized to Robert Haas in another post- no offense was intended.
    
    > There are real,
    > substantive, unfixable reasons to not trust fcntl locking completely.
    
    ...on NFS which the postgresql community doesn't recommend anyway. But even in that case, the existing lock file (even without the fcntl lock), can catch that case via the PID in the file contents. That is what I meant when I claimed that the behavior remains the same.
    
    > 
    >> I would encourage you to take a look at the patch.
    > 
    > Just to be perfectly clear: I have not read your patch, and am not
    > likely to before the next commitfest starts, because I have
    > approximately forty times too many things to do already.  I'm just going
    > off your own abbreviated description of the patch.  But from what I know
    > about fcntl locking, it's not a sufficient substitute for the SysV shmem
    > interlock, because it has failure modes that the SysV interlock doesn't,
    > and those failure modes occur in real-world cases.  Yeah, it'd be nice
    > to also be able to lock against other postmasters on other NFS clients,
    > but we hardly ever hear of somebody getting burnt by the lack of that
    > (and fcntl wouldn't be a bulletproof defense anyway).  On the other
    > hand, accidentally trying to start a duplicate postmaster on the same
    > machine is an everyday occurrence.
    
    I really do appreciate the time you have put into feedback. I posed this question also to Robert Haas: is there a different API which you would find acceptable? I chose fcntl because it seemed well-suited for this task, but the feedback has been regarding NFS v<4 concerns.
    
    Cheers,
    M
    

25. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> — 2011-04-14T15:33:12Z

    On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:26:33AM -0400, A.M. wrote:
    > 1) the SysV nattch method's primary purpose is to protect the shmem
    > region. This is no longer necessary in my patch because the shared
    > memory in unlinked immediately after creation, so only the initial
    > postmaster and its children have access.
    
    Umm, you don't unlink SysV shared memory. All the flag does is make
    sure it goes away when the last user goes away. In the mean time people
    can still connect to it.
    
    > The lock file contents are currently important to get the pid of a
    > potential, conflicting postmaster. With the fcntl API, we can return
    > a live conflicting PID (whether a postmaster or a stuck child), so
    > that's an improvement. This could be used, for example, for STONITH,
    > to reliably kill a dying replication clone- just loop on the pids
    > returned from the lock.
    
    SysV shared memory also gives you a PID, that's the point.
    > 
    > Even if the fcntl check passes, the pid in the lock file is checked, so the lock file behavior remains the same.
    
    The interlock is to make sure there are no living postmaster children.
    The lockfile won't tell you that. So the issue is that while fcntl can
    work, sysv can do better.
    
    Also, I think you underestimate the value of the current interlock.
    Before this people did manage to trash their databases regularly this
    way. Lockfiles can be deleted and yes, people do it all the time.
    
    Actually, it occurs to me you can solve NFS problem by putting the
    lockfile in the socket dir. That can't possibly be on NFS.
    
    Have a nice day,
    -- 
    Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
    > Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism,
    > when hate for people other than your own comes first. 
    >                                       - Charles de Gaulle
    

26. Re: POSIX shared memory redux

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-04-14T18:23:15Z

    On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:26 AM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
    > From what I understood, the primary purpose of the SysV check was to protect the shared memory from multiple stompers. The interlock was a neat side-effect.
    
    Not really - the purpose of the interlock is to protect the underlying
    data files.  The nattch interlock allows us to be very confident that
    there isn't another postmaster running on the same data directory on
    the same machine, and that is extremely important.
    
    You've just about convinced me that it might not be a bad idea to add
    the fcntl() interlock in addition because, as you say, that has a
    chance of working even over NFS.  But the interlock we have now is
    *extremely* reliable, and I think we'd need to get some other
    amazingly compelling benefit to consider changing it (even if we were
    convinced that the alternate method was also reliable).  I don't see
    that there is one.  Anyone running an existing version of PostgreSQL
    in an environment where they care *at all* about performance has
    already adjusted their SysV shm settings way up.  The benefit of using
    POSIX shm is that in, say, PostgreSQL 9.2, it might be possible for
    shared buffers to have a somewhat higher default setting out of the
    box, and be further increased from there without kernel parameter
    changes.  And there might be more benefits besides that, but certainly
    those by themselves seem pretty worthwhile.  SysV shm is extremely
    portable, so I don't think that we're losing anything by continuing to
    allocate a small amount of it (a few kilobytes, perhaps) and just push
    everything else out into POSIX shm.
    
    -- 
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company