[pgpool-general: 2001] Re: trouble with recovery of a downed node
ishii at postgresql.org
Tue Aug 6 11:24:52 JST 2013
> Hi again,
> I am having difficulty achieving a consistent database recovery in my
> three-PostgreSQL, two-pgpool setup (native replication). In a
> previous post I mentioned that I often get inconsistent counts of
> updated rows for a table that is probably being updated during the
> The technique I'm using is a daily backup with continuous archiving as
> described at
> http://zetetic.net/blog/2012/3/9/point-in-time-recovery-from-backup-using-postgresql-continuo.html. As
> a result my setup has no recovery_1st_stage_command,
> pgpool_recovery_pitr as the second phase command, and my
> pgpool_remote_start takes care of the complete recovery and restart as
> in that blog post.
> I would include my exact scripts but I don't want to be one of those
> people who say "here's my setup, now fix it". :-) Instead I'd like to
> better understand the recovery phases and how they impact database
> availability. Here is the order of things as I understand it:
> 1) Start recovery by running the stage 1 script. Existing and new
> connections, and all queries and updates, are allowed. Updates are
> written to the WAL.
> 2) Stop accepting connections and queries. (Question: Are existing
> connections terminated at this point?)
It denpends on your configuration. If client_idle_limit_in_recovery =
0 (the default), pgpool will wait until all connections are
diconnected. If not, wait N seconds then terminate the connection if
> 3) Run the stage 2 script. pgpool_recovery_pitr does
> pgpool_switch_xlog() as recommended, so all WAL are archived by the
> time it completes.
> 4) Run pgpool_remote_start.
> a) This copies the base backup and archived WALs, and writes
> b) Since in postgresql.conf I have hot_standby=off, connections are
> blocked until recovery completes.
> c) My pgpool_remote_start starts PostgreSQL on the recovered node in a
> synchronous fashion, so it does not terminate until the PostgreSQL
> startup is finished.
> 5) Connections are allowed once more.
> Is this correct? With this flow I can't see how the newly recovered
> node could be out of sync with the master. But the cluster behaves as
> if an update has not been recorded in the archived WAL, or an update
> took place on the master and the other slave somewhere between step 2
> and step 5.
Not sure I correctly understand your strategy but...
Can you stop updating at all while online recovery and make sure that
there's no difference between master DB and recoveried DB? If there's
no difference, the problem must be in the WAL copy process (or timing).
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> pgpool-II's logs of the recovery look correct:
> 2013-08-01 16:16:09 LOG: pid 25265: send_failback_request: fail back 1
> th node request from pid 25265
> 2013-08-01 16:16:09 LOG: pid 25257: wd_start_interlock: start
> 2013-08-01 16:16:09 LOG: pid 25265: wd_send_response:
> WD_STAND_FOR_LOCK_HOLDER received it
> 2013-08-01 16:16:09 LOG: pid 25257: starting fail back. reconnect host
> 2013-08-01 16:16:11 LOG: pid 25257: Restart all children
> 2013-08-01 16:16:11 LOG: pid 25257: wd_end_interlock: end interlocking
> 2013-08-01 16:16:12 LOG: pid 25257: failover: set new primary node: -1
> 2013-08-01 16:16:12 LOG: pid 25257: failover: set new master node: 0
> 2013-08-01 16:16:12 LOG: pid 6894: worker process received restart
> 2013-08-01 16:16:12 LOG: pid 25257: failback done. reconnect host
> 2013-08-01 16:16:13 LOG: pid 6893: pcp child process received restart
> 2013-08-01 16:16:13 LOG: pid 25257: PCP child 6893 exits with status
> 256 in failover()
> 2013-08-01 16:16:13 LOG: pid 25257: fork a new PCP child pid 7374 in
> 2013-08-01 16:16:13 LOG: pid 25257: worker child 6894 exits with
> status 256
> 2013-08-01 16:16:13 LOG: pid 25257: fork a new worker child pid 7375
> But no matter how I do it, I get something like this after running my
> app for a while:
> 2013-08-01 17:08:28 ERROR: pid 6597: pgpool detected difference of the
> number of inserted, updated or deleted tuples. Possible last query
> was: " UPDATE ws_cached_searches SET ... "
> 2013-08-01 17:08:28 LOG: pid 6597: CommandComplete: Number of affected
> tuples are: 1 0 1
> 2013-08-01 17:08:28 LOG: pid 6597: ReadyForQuery: Degenerate backends:
> 2013-08-01 17:08:28 LOG: pid 6597: ReadyForQuery: Number of affected
> tuples are: 1 0 1
> 2013-08-01 17:08:28 LOG: pid 25257: starting degeneration. shutdown
> host psql-vm2.compusult.net(5432)
> It varies whether the complaint is for the node just recovered, or the
> other slave.
> I feel like I'm missing something critical in the backup or recovery
> process, but it is eluding me. Can anyone help?
More information about the pgpool-general