On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:20 PM Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:32:31 +0530
> Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 8:12 AM, Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
> > >> Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
> > >> > > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar
> > >> > > > <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA
> > >> > > > > <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:25:23 +0530
> > >> > > > > > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > However, I wonder users don't expect
> > >> > > > > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused to wait.
> > >> > > > > > > > > Especially, if max_standby_streaming_delay is -1, this
> > >> > > > > > > > > will be blocked forever,
> > >> > > > > > > > > although this setting may not be usual. In addition,
> > >> > > > > > > > > some users may set
> > >> > > > > > > > > recovery_min_apply_delay for a large. If such users
> > >> > > > > > > > > call pg_is_wal_replay_paused,
> > >> > > > > > > > > it could wait for a long time.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > At least, I think we need some descriptions on document
> > >> > > > > > > > > to explain
> > >> > > > > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused could wait while a time.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Ok
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Fixed this, added some comments in .sgml as well as in
> > >> > > > > > > function header
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you for fixing this.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Also, is it better to fix the description of
> > >> > > > > > pg_wal_replay_pause from
> > >> > > > > > "Pauses recovery." to "Request to pause recovery." in
> > >> > > > > > according with
> > >> > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Okay
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Also, how about adding a new boolean argument to
> > >> > > > > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused to
> > >> > > > > > > > > control whether this waits for recovery to get paused or
> > >> > > > > > > > > not? By setting its
> > >> > > > > > > > > default value to true or false, users can use the old
> > >> > > > > > > > > format for calling this
> > >> > > > > > > > > and the backward compatibility can be maintained.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > So basically, if the wait_recovery_pause flag is false
> > >> > > > > > > > then we will
> > >> > > > > > > > immediately return true if the pause is requested? I
> > >> > > > > > > > agree that it is
> > >> > > > > > > > good to have an API to know whether the recovery pause is
> > >> > > > > > > > requested or
> > >> > > > > > > > not but I am not sure is it good idea to make this API
> > >> > > > > > > > serve both the
> > >> > > > > > > > purpose? Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I think the current pg_is_wal_replay_paused() already has
> > >> > > > > > another purpose;
> > >> > > > > > this waits recovery to actually get paused. If we want to
> > >> > > > > > limit this API's
> > >> > > > > > purpose only to return the pause state, it seems better to fix
> > >> > > > > > this to return
> > >> > > > > > the actual state at the cost of lacking the backward
> > >> > > > > > compatibility. If we want
> > >> > > > > > to know whether pause is requested, we may add a new API like
> > >> > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted(). Also, if we want to wait
> > >> > > > > > recovery to actually
> > >> > > > > > get paused, we may add an option to pg_wal_replay_pause() for
> > >> > > > > > this purpose.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > However, this might be a bikeshedding. If anyone don't care
> > >> > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused() can make user wait for a long time,
> > >> > > > > > I don't care either.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I don't think that it will be blocked ever, because
> > >> > > > > pg_wal_replay_pause is sending the WakeupRecovery() which means
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > recovery process will not be stuck on waiting for the WAL.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yes, there is no stuck on waiting for the WAL. However, it can be
> > >> > > stuck during resolving
> > >> > > a recovery conflict. The process could wait for
> > >> > > max_standby_streaming_delay or
> > >> > > max_standby_archive_delay at most before recovery get completely
> > >> > > paused.
> > >> >
> > >> > Okay, I agree that it is possible so for handling this we have a
> > >> > couple of options
> > >> > 1. pg_is_wal_replay_paused(), interface will wait for recovery to
> > >> > actually get paused, but user have an option to cancel that. So I
> > >> > agree that there is currently no option to just know that recovery
> > >> > pause is requested without waiting for its actually get paused if it
> > >> > is requested. So one option is we can provide an another interface as
> > >> > you mentioned pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted(), which can just
> > >> > return the request status. I am not sure how useful it is.
> > >>
> > >> If it is acceptable that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() makes users wait,
> > >> I'm ok for the current interface. I don't feel the need of
> > >> pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted().
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. Pass an option to pg_is_wal_replay_paused whether to wait for
> > >> > recovery to actually get paused or not.
> > >> >
> > >> > 3. Pass an option to pg_wal_replay_pause(), whether to wait for
> > >> > recovery pause or just request and return.
> > >> >
> > >> > I like the option 1, any other opinion on this?
> > >> >
> > >> > > Also, it could wait for recovery_min_apply_delay if it has a valid
> > >> > > value. It is possible
> > >> > > that a user set this parameter to a large value, so it could wait
> > >> > > for a long time. However,
> > >> > > this will be avoided by calling recoveryPausesHere() or
> > >> > > CheckAndSetRecoveryPause() in
> > >> > > recoveryApplyDelay().
> > >> >
> > >> > Right
> > >>
> > >> Is there any reason not to do it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I missed that.. I will do in the next version
> > >
> >
> > In the last patch there were some local changes which I did not add to
> > the patch and it was giving compilation warning so fixed that along
> > with that I have addressed your this comment as well.
>
> Thank you fixing this!
>
> I noticed that, after this fix, the following recoveryPausesHere() might
> be unnecessary because this test and pause is already done in
> recoveryApplyDelay
> What do you think about it?
>
> if (recoveryApplyDelay(xlogreader))
> {
> /*
> * We test for paused recovery again here. If user sets
> * delayed apply, it may be because they expect to pause
> * recovery in case of problems, so we must test again
> * here otherwise pausing during the delay-wait wouldn't
> * work.
> */
> if (((volatile XLogCtlData *)
> XLogCtl)->recoveryPauseState)
> recoveryPausesHere(false);
> }
Yeah, a valid point. Thanks!
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
