On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
> While reading InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() code, I found another
> issue.
>
> ereport(LOG,
> (errmsg("terminating walsender %d
> because replication slot \"%s\" is too far behind",
> wspid,
> NameStr(slotname))));
> (void) kill(wspid, SIGTERM);
>
> wspid indicates the PID of process using the slot. That process can be
> a backend, for example, executing pg_replication_slot_advance().
> So "walsender" in the above log message is not always correct.
Good point.
> int wspid =
> ReplicationSlotAcquire(NameStr(slotname),
>
> SAB_Inquire);
>
> Why do we need to call ReplicationSlotAcquire() here and mark the slot as
> used by the checkpointer? Isn't it enough to check directly the slot's
> active_pid, instead?
>
> Maybe ReplicationSlotAcquire() is necessary because
> ReplicationSlotRelease() is called later? If so, why do we need to call
> ReplicationSlotRelease()? ISTM that we don't need to do that if the slot's
> active_pid is zero. No?
I think the point here was that in order to modify the slot you have to
acquire it -- it's not valid to modify a slot you don't own.
> + /*
> + * Signal to terminate the process using the replication slot.
> + *
> + * Try to signal every 100ms until it succeeds.
> + */
> + if (!killed && kill(active_pid, SIGTERM) == 0)
> + killed = true;
> + ConditionVariableTimedSleep(&slot->active_cv, 100,
> +
> WAIT_EVENT_REPLICATION_SLOT_DROP);
> + } while (ReplicationSlotIsActive(slot, NULL));
Note that here you're signalling only once and then sleeping many times
in increments of 100ms -- you're not signalling every 100ms as the
comment claims -- unless the signal fails, but you don't really expect
that. On the contrary, I'd claim that the logic is reversed: if the
signal fails, *then* you should stop signalling.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
