UNOFFICIAL
Thank you for your reply. I can confirm there were no changes made to the
config of the replica.
We have had a further two occurrences of a walreceiver failing - each
occurrence is in a different cluster, however, both clusters are on the same
set of hardware. In each of the new cases we do not get the error where the
primary wal has zeroes. We are able to dump the WAL from each of the primary
clusters and this shows the command the walreceiver failed on was a commit. Is
there any significance in the parameters in the commit record - 'inval msgs:
catcache 21; sync'. Details of each are shown below.
--Cluster 1
The walreceiver in the replica failed as follows -
<2024-02-26 07:00:18.475 AEDT [3067297]: [1-1]
user=[unknown],db=[unknown] > LOG: connection received: host=[local]
<2024-02-26 07:00:18.476 AEDT [3067297]: [2-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres
database=postgres application_name=psql
<2024-02-26 07:00:18.480 AEDT [3067297]: [3-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.006
user=postgres database=postgres host=[local]
<2024-02-26 11:31:27.174 AEDT [1971080]: [6-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:31:27.174 AEDT [1971084]: [2-1] user=,db= > FATAL:
terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command
<2024-02-26 11:31:27.274 AEDT [1971080]: [7-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:31:27.274 AEDT [1971080]: [8-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:31:27.275 AEDT [1971080]: [9-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:31:32.279 AEDT [1971080]: [10-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
A pg_waldump of the archived wal from the primary shows 1/AC000D78 is a commit -
pg_waldump 0000000900000001000000AC
<snip>
<snip>
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000C60, prev 1/AC000BE8, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 8395441
latestCompletedXid 8395439 oldestRunningXid 8395440; 1 xacts: 8395440
rmgr: Database len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 8395440, lsn:
1/AC000C98, prev 1/AC000C60, desc: CREATE copy dir 1663/1 to 1663/17149
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000CC8, prev 1/AC000C98, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 8395441
latestCompletedXid 8395439 oldestRunningXid 8395440; 1 xacts: 8395440
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000D00, prev 1/AC000CC8, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 1/AC000CC8; tli 9;
prev tli 9; fpw true; xid 0:8395441; oid 24713; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid
478 in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest running xid 8395440; online
rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 66/ 66, tx: 8395440, lsn:
1/AC000D78, prev 1/AC000D00, desc: COMMIT 2024-02-26 11:31:25.927728 AEDT;
inval msgs: catcache 21; sync
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 49/ 2037, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000DC0, prev 1/AC000D78, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1664/0/1262
blk 0 FPW
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 50/ 50, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC0015B8, prev 1/AC000DC0, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 8395441
latestCompletedXid 8395440 oldestRunningXid 8395441
rmgr: Storage len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC0015F0, prev 1/AC0015B8, desc: CREATE base/17149/17150
rmgr: Heap len (rec/tot): 54/ 1518, tx: 8395441, lsn:
1/AC001620, prev 1/AC0015F0, desc: INSERT off 8 flags 0x01, blkref #0: rel
1663/17149/1247 blk 9 FPW
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 53/ 1013, tx: 8395441, lsn:
1/AC001C10, prev 1/AC001620, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 46, blkref #0: rel
1663/17149/2703 blk 2 FPW
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 53/ 6113, tx: 8395441, lsn:
1/AC002020, prev 1/AC001C10, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 161, blkref #0: rel
1663/17149/2704 blk 4 FPW
<snip>
<snip>
A pg_waldump of the wal that was streamed to our barman server shows -
pg_waldump 0000000900000001000000AC
<snip>
<snip>
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000C60, prev 1/AC000BE8, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 8395441
latestCompletedXid 8395439 oldestRunningXid 8395440; 1 xacts: 8395440
rmgr: Database len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 8395440, lsn:
1/AC000C98, prev 1/AC000C60, desc: CREATE copy dir 1663/1 to 1663/17149
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000CC8, prev 1/AC000C98, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 8395441
latestCompletedXid 8395439 oldestRunningXid 8395440; 1 xacts: 8395440
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
1/AC000D00, prev 1/AC000CC8, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 1/AC000CC8; tli 9;
prev tli 9; fpw true; xid 0:8395441; oid 24713; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid
478 in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest running xid 8395440; online
pg_waldump: fatal: error in WAL record at 1/AC000D00: invalid record
length at 1/AC000D78: wanted 24, got 0
--Cluster 2
The walreceiver in the replica failed as follows -
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.727 AEDT [3068652]: [1-1]
user=[unknown],db=[unknown] > LOG: connection received: host=[local]
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.730 AEDT [3068652]: [2-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres
database=postgres application_name=psql
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.734 AEDT [3068652]: [3-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.008
user=postgres database=postgres host=[local]
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.861 AEDT [3068725]: [1-1]
user=[unknown],db=[unknown] > LOG: connection received: host=[local]
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.863 AEDT [3068725]: [2-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres
database=postgres application_name=psql
<2024-02-26 07:01:06.867 AEDT [3068725]: [3-1]
user=postgres,db=postgres > LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.006
user=postgres database=postgres host=[local]
<2024-02-26 11:54:08.280 AEDT [3701794]: [5-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:54:08.280 AEDT [3701798]: [2-1] user=,db= > FATAL:
terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command
<2024-02-26 11:54:08.381 AEDT [3701794]: [6-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:54:08.381 AEDT [3701794]: [7-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:54:08.381 AEDT [3701794]: [8-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
<2024-02-26 11:54:13.385 AEDT [3701794]: [9-1] user=,db= > LOG:
invalid record length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
A pg_waldump of the archived wal from the primary shows 0/08000FF8 is a commit -
pg_waldump 000000010000000000000008
<snip>
<snip>
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000E30, prev 0/08000D68, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 499 latestCompletedXid
497 oldestRunningXid 498; 1 xacts: 498
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000E68, prev 0/08000E30, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 0/8000E30; tli 1;
prev tli 1; fpw true; xid 0:499; oid 24576; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid 478
in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest ru
nning xid 498; online
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000EE0, prev 0/08000E68, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 499 latestCompletedXid
497 oldestRunningXid 498; 1 xacts: 498
rmgr: Database len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 498, lsn:
0/08000F18, prev 0/08000EE0, desc: CREATE copy dir 1663/1 to 1663/16451
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000F48, prev 0/08000F18, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 499 latestCompletedXid
497 oldestRunningXid 498; 1 xacts: 498
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000F80, prev 0/08000F48, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 0/8000F48; tli 1;
prev tli 1; fpw true; xid 0:499; oid 24576; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid 478
in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest ru
nning xid 498; online
rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 66/ 66, tx: 498, lsn:
0/08000FF8, prev 0/08000F80, desc: COMMIT 2024-02-26 11:54:07.145087 AEDT;
inval msgs: catcache 21; sync
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 49/ 1501, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08001040, prev 0/08000FF8, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1664/0/1262
blk 0 FPW
rmgr: Storage len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08001620, prev 0/08001040, desc: CREATE base/16451/16452
rmgr: Heap len (rec/tot): 54/ 1518, tx: 499, lsn:
0/08001650, prev 0/08001620, desc: INSERT off 8 flags 0x01, blkref #0: rel
1663/16451/1247 blk 9 FPW
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 53/ 1013, tx: 499, lsn:
0/08001C40, prev 0/08001650, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 46, blkref #0: rel
1663/16451/2703 blk 2 FPW
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 53/ 6113, tx: 499, lsn:
0/08002050, prev 0/08001C40, desc: INSERT_LEAF off 161, blkref #0: rel
1663/16451/2704 blk 4 FPW
<snip>
<snip>
A pg_waldump of the wal that was streamed to our barman server shows -
pg_waldump 000000010000000000000008
<snip>
<snip>
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000E68, prev 0/08000E30, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 0/8000E30; tli 1;
prev tli 1; fpw true; xid 0:499; oid 24576; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid 478
in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest running xid 498; online
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000EE0, prev 0/08000E68, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 499 latestCompletedXid
497 oldestRunningXid 498; 1 xacts: 498
rmgr: Database len (rec/tot): 42/ 42, tx: 498, lsn:
0/08000F18, prev 0/08000EE0, desc: CREATE copy dir 1663/1 to 1663/16451
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000F48, prev 0/08000F18, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 499 latestCompletedXid
497 oldestRunningXid 498; 1 xacts: 498
rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 114/ 114, tx: 0, lsn:
0/08000F80, prev 0/08000F48, desc: CHECKPOINT_ONLINE redo 0/8000F48; tli 1;
prev tli 1; fpw true; xid 0:499; oid 24576; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid 478
in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0;
oldest running xid 498; online
pg_waldump: fatal: error in WAL record at 0/8000F80: invalid record
length at 0/8000FF8: wanted 24, got 0
Some observations from these clusters
- Both primary clusters continued to write and close the WAL files
(000000010000000000000008 and 0000000900000001000000AC) that the replicas were
streaming at the time of the walreceiver failure
- The walreceiver on each replica was terminated when attempting to write the
commit transaction
- The walreceiver on the barman server did not fail but the WAL file does not
contain the commit transaction
- The walreceiver on the barman server continued to receive streamed WAL for
subsequent WAL files
- The commit (0/08000FF8 and 1/AC000D78) lsn did not get streamed to either the
replicas or barman server
Thanks in advance.
UNOFFICIAL
-----Original Message-----
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 26 February 2024 7:27 PM
To: Mark Schloss <mark.schl...@austrac.gov.au>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: walreceiver fails on asynchronous replica [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
[EXTERNAL]
At Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:04:03 +0000, Mark Schloss <mark.schl...@austrac.gov.au>
wrote in
> <2024-02-23 07:50:05.637 AEDT [1957121]: [1-1] user=,db= > LOG: started
> streaming WAL from primary at 6/B0000000 on timeline 5
> <2024-02-23 07:50:05.696 AEDT [1957117]: [6-1] user=,db= > LOG: invalid
> magic number 0000 in log segment 0000000500000006000000B0, offset 0
This appears to suggest that the WAL file that the standby fetched was
zero-filled on the primary side, which cannot happen by a normal
operation. A preallocated WAL segment can be zero-filled but it cannot
be replicated under normal operations.
> <2024-02-22 14:20:23.383 AEDT [565231]: [6-1] user=,db= > FATAL: terminating
> walreceiver process due to administrator command
This may suggest a config reload with some parameter changes.
One possible scenario matching the log lines could be that someone
switched primary_conninfo to a newly-restored primary. However, if the
new primary had older data than the previously connected primary,
possibly leading to the situation where the segment 0..5..6..B0 on it
was a preallocated one that was filled with zeros, the standby could
end up fetching the zero-filled WAL segment (file) and might fail this
way. If this is the case, such operations should be avoided.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a reproducer or detailed operations
that took place there, the best I can do now is to guess a possible
scenario as described above. I'm not sure how come the situation
actually arose.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
**********************************************************************
Please note that your email address is known to AUSTRAC for the
purposes of communicating with you. The information transmitted in
this e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may
contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. If you have
received this information in error you must not disseminate, copy or
take any action on it and we request that you delete all copies of
this transmission together with attachments and notify the sender.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
