On 19/12/2019 12:25, Andrey Borodin wrote:
Hi Fabio!
Thanks for looking into this.
19 дек. 2019 г., в 17:14, Fabio Ugo Venchiarutti <f.venchiaru...@ocado.com>
написал(а):
You're hitting the CAP theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem )
You cannot do it with fewer than 3 nodes, as the moment you set your standby to
synchronous to achieve consistency, both your nodes become single points of
failure.
We have 3 nodes, and the problem is reproducible with all standbys being
synchronous.
With 3 or more nodes you can perform what is called a quorum write against (
floor(<total_nodes> / 2) + 1 ) nodes .
The problem seems to be reproducible in quorum commit too.
With 3+ nodes, the "easy" strategy is to set a <quorum - 1> number of standby
nodes in synchronous_standby_names (
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-replication.html#GUC-SYNCHRONOUS-STANDBY-NAMES
)
This however makes it tricky to pick the correct standby for promotions during
auto-failovers, as you need to freeze all the standbys listed in the above
setting in order to correctly determine which one has the highest WAL location
without running into race conditions (as the operation is non-atomic, stateful
and sticky).
After promotion of any standby we still can commit to old primary with the
combination of cancel and retry.
AFAICT this pseudo-idempotency issue can only be solved if every query
is validated against the quorum.
A quick-and-dirty solution would be to wrap the whole thing in a CTE
which also returns a count from pg_stat_replication (a stray/partitioned
master would have less than (quorum - 1 standbys).
(May be possible to do it directly in the RETURNING clause, I don't have
a backend handy test that).
You can either look into the result at the client or force an error via
some bad cast/zero division in the query.
All the above is however still subject to (admittedly tight) race
conditions.
This problem is precisely why I don't use any of the off-the shelf
solutions: last time I checked none of that had a connection
proxy/router to direct clients to the real master and not a node that
thinks it is.
I personally prefer to designate a fixed synchronous set at setup time and
automatically set a static synchronous_standby_names on the master whenever a
failover occurs. That allows for a simpler failover mechanism as you know they
got the latest WAL location.
No, synchronous standby does not necessarily own latest WAL. It has WAL point
no earlier than all commits acknowledged to client.
You're right. I should have said "latest WAL holding an acknowledged
transaction"
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
--
Regards
Fabio Ugo Venchiarutti
OSPCFC Network Engineering Dpt.
Ocado Technology
--
Notice:
This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of
members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message
may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the
Ocado Group.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is
your responsibility to scan this message for viruses.
References to the
"Ocado Group" are to Ocado Group plc (registered in England and Wales with
number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as that expression is
defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. The registered office
of Ocado Group plc is Buildings One & Two, Trident Place, Mosquito Way,
Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9UL.
