On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 11:39 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> If the failover happens due to unresponsive node we cannot just turn
> off sync rep. We need to have some spare connections for that (number
> of stuck backends will skyrocket during network partitioning). We
> need available descriptors and some memory to fork new backend. We
> will need to re-read config. We need time to try after all.
> At some failures we may lack some of these.
I think it's a good point that, when things start to go wrong, they can
go very wrong very quickly.
But until you've disabled sync rep, the primary will essentially be
down for writes whether using this new feature or not. Even if you can
terminate some backends to try to free space, the application will just
make new connections that will get stuck the same way.
You can avoid the "fork backend" problem by keeping a connection always
open from the HA tool, or by editing the conf to disable sync rep and
issuing SIGHUP instead. Granted, that still takes some memory.
> Partial degradation is already hard task. Without ability to easily
> terminate running Postgres HA tool will often resort to SIGKILL.
When the system is really wedged as you describe (waiting on sync rep,
tons of connections, and low memory), what information do you expect
the HA tool to be able to collect, and what actions do you expect it to
take?
Presumably, you'd want it to disable sync rep at some point to get back
online. Where does SIGTERM fit into the picture?
> > If you don't handle the termination case, then there's still a
> > chance
> > for the transaction to become visible to other clients before its
> > replicated.
>
> Termination is admin command, they know what they are doing.
> Cancelation is part of user protocol.
>From the pg_terminate_backend() docs: "This is also allowed if the
calling role is a member of the role whose backend is being terminated
or the calling role has been granted pg_signal_backend", so it's not
really an admin command. Even for an admin, it might be hard to
understand why terminating a backend could result in losing a visible
transaction.
I'm not really seeing two use cases here for two GUCs. Are you sure you
want to disable only cancels but allow termination to proceed?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
