pg_ctl emits strange warning message

On 13/09/10 13:08, Fujii Masao wrote:

Hi,

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00921.php

(2)
pg_ctl -ms stop emits the following warning whenever there is the
backup_label file in $PGDATA.

WARNING: online backup mode is active
Shutdown will not complete until pg_stop_backup() is called.

This warning doesn't fit in with the shutdown during recovery case.
Since smart shutdown might be requested by other than pg_ctl, the
warning should be emitted in server side rather than client, I think.
How about moving the warning to the server side?

Hmm, I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not. Perhaps we
should discuss for 9.1?

Okay, this is not a critical problem.

Let's revisit this issue. The problem here is that pg_ctl might emit
the following warning messages when it shuts down the standby server.
This is very strange thing since online backup mode is never active
in the standby.

WARNING: online backup mode is active
Shutdown will not complete until pg_stop_backup() is called.

Another problem is that the above useful messages are not emitted
when shutdown is requested by other than pg_ctl.

The attached patch moves the warning from pg_ctl to the server side
and makes postmaster emit it only when online backup mode is really
active. This can urge users to call pg_stop_backup to complete smart
shutdown whenever it's requested during online backup. I added the
patch into the next CF.

There's this comment by Robert Haas:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01433.php

Like Robert, I'm also a bit worried that this might make the message
less prominent. When you run "pg_ctl stop" manually, it's good to get
the message directly in the terminal.

Another line of attack is to remove the backup_label file earlier during
recovery. We could remove it as soon as we update pg_control file with
the same information, ie. the backup start location. And by remove I
mean rename to backup_label.old, to avoid destroying forensic
information ;-).

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On 13/09/10 16:01, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

On 13/09/10 13:08, Fujii Masao wrote:

Hi,

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00921.php

(2)
pg_ctl -ms stop emits the following warning whenever there is the
backup_label file in $PGDATA.

WARNING: online backup mode is active
Shutdown will not complete until pg_stop_backup() is called.

This warning doesn't fit in with the shutdown during recovery case.
Since smart shutdown might be requested by other than pg_ctl, the
warning should be emitted in server side rather than client, I think.
How about moving the warning to the server side?

Hmm, I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not. Perhaps we
should discuss for 9.1?

Okay, this is not a critical problem.

Let's revisit this issue. The problem here is that pg_ctl might emit
the following warning messages when it shuts down the standby server.
This is very strange thing since online backup mode is never active
in the standby.

WARNING: online backup mode is active
Shutdown will not complete until pg_stop_backup() is called.

Another problem is that the above useful messages are not emitted
when shutdown is requested by other than pg_ctl.

The attached patch moves the warning from pg_ctl to the server side
and makes postmaster emit it only when online backup mode is really
active. This can urge users to call pg_stop_backup to complete smart
shutdown whenever it's requested during online backup. I added the
patch into the next CF.

There's this comment by Robert Haas:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01433.php

Like Robert, I'm also a bit worried that this might make the message
less prominent. When you run "pg_ctl stop" manually, it's good to get
the message directly in the terminal.

Another line of attack is to remove the backup_label file earlier during
recovery. We could remove it as soon as we update pg_control file with
the same information, ie. the backup start location. And by remove I
mean rename to backup_label.old, to avoid destroying forensic
information ;-).

Yet another idea: Check in pg_ctl if recovery.conf is also present. If
it is, assume we're in recovery and don't print that warning. That would
be dead simple. I would even consider backpatching it to 9.0, this can
be regarded as a bug, albeit a minor one.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:

Yet another idea: Check in pg_ctl if recovery.conf is also present. If
it is, assume we're in recovery and don't print that warning. That would
be dead simple.

+1. This sounds like a much more appropriate approach.

regards, tom lane

On 13/09/10 18:19, Tom Lane wrote:

Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:

Yet another idea: Check in pg_ctl if recovery.conf is also present. If
it is, assume we're in recovery and don't print that warning. That would
be dead simple.

+1. This sounds like a much more appropriate approach.

Hmm, looking at this more closely, I'm a bit confused. We already rename
away backup_label at the beginning of recovery. Under what circumstances
do we have a problem? This starts to seem like a complete non-issue to me.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hmm, looking at this more closely, I'm a bit confused. We already rename
away backup_label at the beginning of recovery. Under what circumstances do
we have a problem? This starts to seem like a complete non-issue to me.

A checkpoint record is read before backup_label file is renamed, so
the problem happens if shutdown is requested while the standby server
is waiting for the WAL containing a checkpoint record to arrive from
the master. This happened some times in my box when testing HS/SR.

To avoid the problem, we should rename backup_label before reading
any WAL record?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Yet another idea: Check in pg_ctl if recovery.conf is also present. If it
is, assume we're in recovery and don't print that warning. That would be
dead simple. I would even consider backpatching it to 9.0, this can be
regarded as a bug, albeit a minor one.

Yeah, it's very simple. Attached patch does that.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On 14/09/10 03:39, Fujii Masao wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hmm, looking at this more closely, I'm a bit confused. We already rename
away backup_label at the beginning of recovery. Under what circumstances do
we have a problem? This starts to seem like a complete non-issue to me.

A checkpoint record is read before backup_label file is renamed, so
the problem happens if shutdown is requested while the standby server
is waiting for the WAL containing a checkpoint record to arrive from
the master. This happened some times in my box when testing HS/SR.

Ok, I see. Shouldn't be very common, but might happen if you have a set
restore_command incorrectly for example.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On 14/09/10 03:55, Fujii Masao wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Yet another idea: Check in pg_ctl if recovery.conf is also present. If it
is, assume we're in recovery and don't print that warning. That would be
dead simple. I would even consider backpatching it to 9.0, this can be
regarded as a bug, albeit a minor one.

Yeah, it's very simple. Attached patch does that.

Committed with some extra comments. I also backpatched this to 9.0.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Committed with some extra comments. I also backpatched this to 9.0.

Thanks! I marked the patch as committed on CF.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:35:23PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Committed with some extra comments. I also backpatched this to 9.0.

Thanks! I marked the patch as committed on CF.

Thanks!

Cheers,
David (Commitfest Cat Herd of the Month).
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate