Обсуждение: More info on pg_stat_activity Wait Event Name when is DataFileRead

I have a Publication/Subscription. Then 10 days ago my replication just
stopped, no one interesting message log on both sides. Then select from
pg_stat_replication was empty and some time later, an hour or two,
pg_stat_replication came back showing a record like it should. Well, it´s
replicating ? No, no one new record on replica, some more time and
pg_stat_replication was empty again. The only log was created was on
primary, initially wal_sender_timeout was 15 minutes. I tried changing it to
1 hour, maybe is a huge transaction, but no, the problem remains the same.
When I set timeout to 0 on Sender and Receiver, then I see that on replica
pg_stat_activity was DataFileRead on Wait Event Name field and IO on Wait
Event Type field, and that status remains the same for hours. Documentation
says DataFileRead is Waiting for a read from a relation data file, so it
does not specify which file is being waited. So, there is a problem on some
table on my replica but ... what file is this ? Well, it´ll spend a lot of
time but lets do a vacuum full. Then it took for 1 or 2 days but found two
corrupted tables. Those tables I couldn´t do select or dump, so I just
droped them and then finally replication came back.

This long explaining was only to show, at least for me, that would be
desirable to have an additional information when Postgres is waiting for a
file. What if DataFileRead showing relfilenode it´s waiting for ?

These logs are on primary, on replica I didn´t find any. And strangely,
those errors did not occur every wal_sender_timeout time, even when was
configured with 15 minutes they occured 2 or 3 times a day only.

log_time;user_name;session_start_time;error_severity;message
2021-04-06 16:21:23.385;replicate;2021-04-06 16:21:23.000;LOG;starting
logical decoding for slot sub_google_bkp
2021-04-06 16:21:23.386;replicate;2021-04-06 16:21:23.000;LOG;logical
decoding found consistent point at 5C1/5C7A3D48
2021-04-06 16:36:24.175;replicate;2021-04-06 16:21:23.000;LOG;terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout

2021-04-06 17:47:15.744;replicate;2021-04-06 17:47:15.000;LOG;starting
logical decoding for slot sub_google_bkp
2021-04-06 17:47:15.745;replicate;2021-04-06 17:47:15.000;LOG;logical
decoding found consistent point at 5C1/5CBFBF38
2021-04-06 18:02:15.757;replicate;2021-04-06 17:47:15.000;LOG;terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout

2021-04-07 11:59:27.831;replicate;2021-04-07 11:59:27.000;LOG;starting
logical decoding for slot sub_google_bkp
2021-04-07 11:59:27.832;replicate;2021-04-07 11:59:27.000;LOG;logical
decoding found consistent point at 5C1/5CBFBF38
2021-04-07 12:14:27.867;replicate;2021-04-07 11:59:27.000;LOG;terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout

2021-04-07 21:45:22.230;replicate;2021-04-07 21:45:22.000;LOG;starting
logical decoding for slot sub_google_bkp
2021-04-07 21:45:22.231;replicate;2021-04-07 21:45:22.000;LOG;logical
decoding found consistent point at 5C1/5CBFD438
2021-04-07 22:45:22.586;replicate;2021-04-07 21:45:22.000;LOG;terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout

2021-04-08 00:06:26.253;replicate;2021-04-08 00:06:25.000;LOG;starting
logical decoding for slot sub_google_bkp
2021-04-08 00:06:26.255;replicate;2021-04-08 00:06:25.000;LOG;logical
decoding found consistent point at 5C1/5CCF7E20
2021-04-08 02:15:10.342;replicate;2021-04-08 00:06:25.000;LOG;terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout




--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 1:58 PM PegoraroF10 <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:
> This long explaining was only to show, at least for me, that would be
> desirable to have an additional information when Postgres is waiting for a
> file. What if DataFileRead showing relfilenode it´s waiting for ?

I agree that this would be nice, but it's pretty much impossible to do
it without adding quite a bit more overhead than the current system
has. And it already has enough overhead to make Andres at least
slightly grumpy, though admittedly a lot of things have enough
overhead to make Andres grumpy, because he REALLY likes it when things
go fast. :-)

I suspect it's best to investigate problems like the one you're having
using a tool like strace, which can provide way more detail than we
could ever cram into a wait event, like the data actually read or
written, timestamps for every operation, etc. But I also kind of
wonder whether it really matters. If your system is getting stuck in a
DataFileRead event for a long period of time, and assuming that's for
real and not just some kind of reporting bug, it sounds a lot like you
have a bad disk or a severely overloaded I/O subsystem. Because what
else would lead to the system getting stuck inside read() for a long
time?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

I´m sure problem was hardware and I hope it does not occur anymore.
If I have a logical replication and on replica I do a Vacuum Full, Cluster
or any other EXCLUSIVE LOCK operation which, replication will wait for that.
I was thinking was about a time to release that lock, or in my situation a
hardware problem. If N seconds
 later and that file is not released then change DataFileRead to
DataFileRead + relfilenode



--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:17 PM PegoraroF10 <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:
> I´m sure problem was hardware and I hope it does not occur anymore.
> If I have a logical replication and on replica I do a Vacuum Full, Cluster
> or any other EXCLUSIVE LOCK operation which, replication will wait for that.
> I was thinking was about a time to release that lock, or in my situation a
> hardware problem. If N seconds
>  later and that file is not released then change DataFileRead to
> DataFileRead + relfilenode

But how would we implement that with reasonable efficiency? If we
called setitimer() before every read() call to set the timeout, and
then again to clear it after the read(), that would probably be
hideously expensive. Perhaps it would work to have a background
"heartbeat" process that pings every backend in the system every 1s or
something like that, and make the signal handler do this, but that
supposes that the signal handler would have ready access to this
information, which doesn't seem totally straightforward to arrange,
and that it would be OK for the signal handler to grab a lock to
update shared memory, which as things stand today is definitely not
safe.

I am not trying to say that there is no way that something like this
could be made to work. There's probably something that can be done. I
don't think I know what that thing is, though.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com