## TLDR
This PR is a no-op. The changes are disabled by default.
## Problem
I. Currently we don't have a way to detect disk I/O failures from WAL
operations.
II.
We observe that the offloader fails to upload a segment due to race
conditions on XLOG SWITCH and PG start streaming WALs. wal_backup task
continously failing to upload a full segment while the segment remains
partial on the disk.
The consequence is that commit_lsn for all SKs move forward but
backup_lsn stays the same. Then, all SKs run out of disk space.
III.
We have discovered SK bugs where the WAL offload owner cannot keep up
with WAL backup/upload to S3, which results in an unbounded accumulation
of WAL segment files on the Safekeeper's disk until the disk becomes
full. This is a somewhat dangerous operation that is hard to recover
from because the Safekeeper cannot write its control files when it is
out of disk space. There are actually 2 problems here:
1. A single problematic timeline can take over the entire disk for the
SK
2. Once out of disk, it's difficult to recover SK
IV.
Neon reports certain storage errors as "critical" errors using a marco,
which will increment a counter/metric that can be used to raise alerts.
However, this metric isn't sliced by tenant and/or timeline today. We
need the tenant/timeline dimension to better respond to incidents and
for blast radius analysis.
## Summary of changes
I.
The PR adds a `safekeeper_wal_disk_io_errors ` which is incremented when
SK fails to create or flush WALs.
II.
To mitigate this issue, we will re-elect a new offloader if the current
offloader is lagging behind too much.
Each SK makes the decision locally but they are aware of each other's
commit and backup lsns.
The new algorithm is
- determine_offloader will pick a SK. say SK-1.
- Each SK checks
-- if commit_lsn - back_lsn > threshold,
-- -- remove SK-1 from the candidate and call determine_offloader again.
SK-1 will step down and all SKs will elect the same leader again.
After the backup is caught up, the leader will become SK-1 again.
This also helps when SK-1 is slow to backup.
I'll set the reelect backup lag to 4 GB later. Setting to 128 MB in dev
to trigger the code more frequently.
III.
This change addresses problem no. 1 by having the Safekeeper perform a
timeline disk utilization check check when processing WAL proposal
messages from Postgres/compute. The Safekeeper now rejects the WAL
proposal message, effectively stops writing more WAL for the timeline to
disk, if the existing WAL files for the timeline on the SK disk exceeds
a certain size (the default threshold is 100GB). The disk utilization is
calculated based on a `last_removed_segno` variable tracked by the
background task removing WAL files, which produces an accurate and
conservative estimate (>= than actual disk usage) of the actual disk
usage.
IV.
* Add a new metric `hadron_critical_storage_event_count` that has the
`tenant_shard_id` and `timeline_id` as dimensions.
* Modified the `crtitical!` marco to include tenant_id and timeline_id
as additional arguments and adapted existing call sites to populate the
tenant shard and timeline ID fields. The `critical!` marco invocation
now increments the `hadron_critical_storage_event_count` with the extra
dimensions. (In SK there isn't the notion of a tenant-shard, so just the
tenant ID is recorded in lieu of tenant shard ID.)
I considered adding a separate marco to avoid merge conflicts, but I
think in this case (detecting critical errors) conflicts are probably
more desirable so that we can be aware whenever Neon adds another
`critical!` invocation in their code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chen Luo <chen.luo@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Haoyu Huang <haoyu.huang@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: William Huang <william.huang@databricks.com>
## Problem
Shard zero needs to track the start LSN of the latest record
in adition to the LSN of the next record to ingest. The former
is included in basebackup persisted by the compute in WAL.
Previously, empty records were skipped for all shards. This caused
the prev LSN tracking on the PS to fall behind and led to logical
replication
issues.
## Summary of changes
Shard zero now receives emtpy interpreted records for LSN tracking
purposes.
A test is included too.
Updates storage components to edition 2024. We like to stay on the
latest edition if possible. There is no functional changes, however some
code changes had to be done to accommodate the edition's breaking
changes.
The PR has two commits:
* the first commit updates storage crates to edition 2024 and appeases
`cargo clippy` by changing code. i have accidentially ran the formatter
on some files that had other edits.
* the second commit performs a `cargo fmt`
I would recommend a closer review of the first commit and a less close
review of the second one (as it just runs `cargo fmt`).
part of https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/10918
## Problem
Safekeepers currently decode and interpret WAL for each shard
separately.
This is wasteful in terms of CPU memory usage - we've seen this in
profiles.
## Summary of changes
Fan-out interpreted WAL to multiple shards.
The basic is that wal decoding and interpretation happens in a separate
tokio task and senders
attach to it. Senders only receive batches concerning their shard and
only past the Lsn they've last seen.
Fan-out is gated behind the `wal_reader_fanout` safekeeper flag
(disabled by default for now).
When fan-out is enabled, it might be desirable to control the absolute
delta between the
current position and a new shard's desired position (i.e. how far behind
or ahead a shard may be).
`max_delta_for_fanout` is a new optional safekeeper flag which dictates
whether to create a new
WAL reader or attach to the existing one. By default, this behaviour is
disabled. Let's consider enabling
it if we spot the need for it in the field.
## Testing
Tests passed [here](https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/10301)
with wal reader fanout enabled
as of
34f6a71718.
Related: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9337
Epic: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9329
## Problem
We want to extract safekeeper http client to separate crate for use in
storage controller and neon_local. However, many types used in the API
are internal to safekeeper.
## Summary of changes
Move them to safekeeper_api crate. No functional changes.
ref https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9011
## Problem
For any given tenant shard, pageservers receive all of the tenant's WAL
from the safekeeper.
This soft-blocks us from using larger shard counts due to bandwidth
concerns and CPU overhead of filtering
out the records.
## Summary of changes
This PR lifts the decoding and interpretation of WAL from the pageserver
into the safekeeper.
A customised PG replication protocol is used where instead of sending
raw WAL, the safekeeper sends
filtered, interpreted records. The receiver drives the protocol
selection, so, on the pageserver side, usage
of the new protocol is gated by a new pageserver config:
`wal_receiver_protocol`.
More granularly the changes are:
1. Optionally inject the protocol and shard identity into the arguments
used for starting replication
2. On the safekeeper side, implement a new wal sending primitive which
decodes and interprets records
before sending them over
3. On the pageserver side, implement the ingestion of this new
replication message type. It's very similar
to what we already have for raw wal (minus decoding and interpreting).
## Notes
* This PR currently uses my [branch of
rust-postgres](https://github.com/neondatabase/rust-postgres/tree/vlad/interpreted-wal-record-replication-support)
which includes the deserialization logic for the new replication message
type. PR for that is open
[here](https://github.com/neondatabase/rust-postgres/pull/32).
* This PR contains changes for both pageservers and safekeepers. It's
safe to merge because the new protocol is disabled by default on the
pageserver side. We can gradually start enabling it in subsequent
releases.
* CI tests are running on https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9747
## Links
Related: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9336
Epic: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9329
