Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Date: 2013-06-08 23:20:13
Message-ID: CAMkU=1wjB+rE4Yn6fBou0WrpfA3r2gZpTfL4Tcc_Mex1o8e41g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:

>
> You know, the PANIC isn't there just because we like to piss of
> users. There's actual technical reasons that don't just go away by
> judging the PANIC as stupid.
> At the points where the XLogInsert()s happens we're in critical sections
> out of which we *cannot* ERROR out because we already may have made
> modifications that cannot be allowed to be performed
> partially/unlogged. That's why we're throwing a PANIC which will force a
> cluster wide restart including *NOT* writing any further buffers from
> s_b out.
>

If archiving is on and failure is due to no space, could we just keep
trying XLogFileInit again for a couple minutes to give archiving a chance
to do its things? Doing that while holding onto locks and a critical
section would be unfortunate, but if the alternative is a PANIC, it might
be acceptable.

The problem is that even if the file is only being kept so it can be
archived, once archiving succeeds I think the file is not removed
immediately but rather not until the next checkpoint, which will never
happen when the locks are still held.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2013-06-08 23:22:50 Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Previous Message Greg Smith 2013-06-08 22:11:02 Re: Cost limited statements RFC