On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 4:03 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 at 12:04, Shubham Khanna
> <khannashubham1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 10:10 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 at 09:34, Shubham Khanna
> > > <khannashubham1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Currently, there is a risk that pg_createsubscriber may fail to
> > > > complete successfully when the max_slot_wal_keep_size value is set too
> > > > low. This can occur if the WAL is removed before the standby using the
> > > > replication slot is able to complete replication, as the required WAL
> > > > files are no longer available.
> > > >
> > > > I was able to reproduce this issue using the following steps:
> > > > Set up a streaming replication environment.
> > > > Run pg_createsubscriber in a debugger.
> > > > Pause pg_createsubscriber at the setup_recovery stage.
> > > > Perform several operations on the primary node to generate a large
> > > > volume of WAL, causing older WAL segments to be removed due to the low
> > > > max_slot_wal_keep_size setting.
> > > > Once the necessary WAL segments are deleted, continue the execution of
> > > > pg_createsubscriber.
> > > > At this point, pg_createsubscriber fails with the following error:
> > > > 2024-12-29 01:21:37.590 IST [427353] FATAL: could not receive data
> > > > from WAL stream: ERROR: requested WAL segment
> > > > 000000010000000000000003 has already been removed
> > > > 2024-12-29 01:21:37.592 IST [427345] LOG: waiting for WAL to become
> > > > available at 0/3000110
> > > > 2024-12-29 01:21:42.593 IST [427358] LOG: started streaming WAL from
> > > > primary at 0/3000000 on timeline 1
> > > > 2024-12-29 01:21:42.593 IST [427358] FATAL: could not receive data
> > > > from WAL stream: ERROR: requested WAL segment
> > > > 000000010000000000000003 has already been removed
> > > >
> > > > This issue was previously reported in [1], with a suggestion to raise
> > > > a warning in [2]. I’ve implemented a patch that logs a warning in
> > > > dry-run mode. This will give users the opportunity to adjust the
> > > > max_slot_wal_keep_size value before running the command.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > +1 for throwing a warning in dry-run mode
> > >
> > > Few comments:
> > > 1) We can have this check only in dry-run mode, it is not required in
> > > non dry-run mode as there is nothing much user can do once the tool is
> > > running, we can change this:
> > > + if (max_slot_wal_keep_size != -1)
> > > + {
> > > + pg_log_warning("publisher requires
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1', but only %d remain",
> > > + max_slot_wal_keep_size);
> > > + pg_log_warning_detail("Change the
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' configuration on the publisher to -1.");
> > > + }
> > >
> > > to:
> > > + if (dry_run && max_slot_wal_keep_size != -1)
> > > + {
> > > + pg_log_warning("publisher requires
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1', but only %d remain",
> > > + max_slot_wal_keep_size);
> > > + pg_log_warning_detail("Change the
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' configuration on the publisher to -1.");
> > > + }
> > >
> > > 2) This error message is not quite right, can we change it to
> > > "publisher requires max_slot_wal_keep_size to be -1, but is set to %d"
> > > + if (max_slot_wal_keep_size != -1)
> > > + {
> > > + pg_log_warning("publisher requires
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1', but only %d remain",
> > > + max_slot_wal_keep_size);
> > > + pg_log_warning_detail("Change the
> > > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' configuration on the publisher to -1.");
> > > + }
> > >
> > > 3) Also the configuration could be specified in format specifier like
> > > it is specified in the earlier case
> > >
> >
> > I have fixed the given comments. The attached patch contains the
> > suggested changes.
>
> Few comments:
> 1) Since this configuration will be updated after reload, you can
> reload instead of restarting:
> +# Configure 'max_slot_wal_keep_size = 1' on the publisher and verify the
> +# warning message
> +$node_p->append_conf('postgresql.conf', 'max_slot_wal_keep_size = 1');
> +$node_p->restart;
>
> 2) You can reset max_slot_wal_keep_size configuration after this test:
> + 0,
> + [qr/./],
> + [
> + qr/pg_createsubscriber: warning: publisher requires
> max_slot_wal_keep_size to be -1/,
> + qr/Change the configuration parameter
> "max_slot_wal_keep_size" on the publisher to -1./,
> + ],
> + 'Validate warning for misconfigured max_slot_wal_keep_size on
> the publisher'
> +);
>
> 3) We could update the comment to also mention the possibility of
> required wal files being deleted with non-default
> max_slot_wal_keep_size.
> + /* Validate max_slot_wal_keep_size */
> + if (dry_run && max_slot_wal_keep_size != -1)
> + {
> + pg_log_warning("publisher requires
> max_slot_wal_keep_size to be -1, but is set to %d",
> + max_slot_wal_keep_size);
> + pg_log_warning_detail("Change the configuration
> parameter \"%s\" on the publisher to %d.",
> +
> "max_slot_wal_keep_size", -1);
> + }
>
> 4) You can update the commit message saying "the possibility of
> required wal files being deleted with non-default
> max_slot_wal_keep_size" and also mention that this warning will be
> raised in dry_run mode.
>I have fixed the given comments. The attached patch contains the suggested changes. Thanks and regards, Shubham Khanna.
v3-0001-Validate-max_slot_wal_keep_size-in-pg_createsubsc.patch
Description: Binary data
