RE: Fix slot synchronization with two_phase decoding enabled
Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-04-22T04:00:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- 0001-Add-a-test.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v11-0001
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:23 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 9:58 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > ----- > > > Fix > > > ----- > > > > > > I think we should keep the confirmed_flush even if the previous > > > synced restart_lsn/catalog_xmin is newer. Attachments include a patch > for the same. > > > > > > > This will fix the case we are facing but adds a new rule for slot > > synchronization. Can we think of a simpler way to fix this by avoiding > > updating other slot fields (like two_phase, two_phase_at) if > > restart_lsn or catalog_xmin of the local slot is ahead of the remote > > slot? > > > > Thinking more about this problem, it seems to me that if the catalog_xmin of > synced slot is allowed to be ahead than the remote_slot when there is still an > open (prepared transaction), it could cause data loss. I mean that after the > promotion, some of the required catalog rows could be removed, and decoding > corresponding changes (changes from tables affected by DDL) could give > unexpected results. Those would be protected on primary/publisher because > the catalog_xmin on it was still accurate and behind. If this theory turns out to > be true, then this is a drawback/bug of the existing fast_forward mode code. I agree that could be a problem. Upon further analysis, I find that the core problem is we do not build a base snapshot when decoding changes during fast forward mode, preventing reference to the minimum transaction ID that remains visible in the snapshot when determining the candidate for catalog_xmin. As a result, catalog_xmin was directly advanced to the oldest running transaction ID found in the latest running_xacts record. In code-level, SnapBuildProcessChange -> ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot could not be reached during fast forward decoding, resulting in rb->txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn being NULL. When advancing catalog_xmin, the system attempts to refer to rb->txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn via ReorderBufferGetOldestXmin(). However, since rb->txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn is NULL, it defaults to directly using running->oldestRunningXid as the candidate for catalog_xmin. For reference, see the implementation details in SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts. I think this is a general issue in fast forward decoding, which not only affect slotsync. I can reproduce the issue using slot_advance SQL API as well. See the attachment for a patch that includes a test to prove that the catalog data that are still required would be removed after premature catalog_xmin advancement during fast forward decoding. If you test that patch on HEAD, you would find that the output missed a column due to vacuum removal. I will start a new thread to report and fix this general. Best Regards, Hou zj
Commits
-
Don't retreat slot's confirmed_flush LSN.
- ad5eaf390c58 18.0 landed
- 7318f241d29c 17.6 landed
- c0f51fde534d 16.10 landed
- 9d1a62359606 15.14 landed
- e68459489c20 14.19 landed
- e323d9df002d 13.22 landed
-
Fix assertion failure during decoding from synced slots.
- 3ff2a1f0c9e8 18.0 landed
-
Fix xmin advancement during fast_forward decoding.
- d65485b02b1f 13.21 landed
- aaf9e95e8764 18.0 landed
- 36148b22ee09 17.5 landed
- 21a7caeeb948 16.9 landed
- f6429bd7db5e 15.13 landed
- 1f63b3626a52 14.18 landed
-
Fix slot synchronization for two_phase enabled slots.
- 4868c96bc8c6 18.0 landed
-
Again match pg_user_mappings to information_schema.user_mapping_options.
- b6e39ca92eee 9.4.13 cited