On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:39 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:03 PM Jacob Biesinger <jake.biesinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm scratching my head at a few rows in the root DB, where it seems the corresponding tenant transaction rolled back, but the root DB transaction committed...Before I jump into particulars, does this sound like expected behavior?No, it sounds like something is going wrong. Your setup as described should work to keep both sides in sync.
Well, that's a plus. At least we're (probably) not using it wrong :)
There aren't many details in the docs around failure modes... is there anything there that could cause this issue?
For example, if there were some temporary network outage that prevented communication between the two DBs, would the FDW fail gracefully? Or if there were some disk failure or something after the FDW signals to the remote (root) DB to commit but then the local (tenant) DB failed to commit? We've had a few outages over the years where we hit the `max_connections` setting on the cluster (which would affect both the root + tenant DBs), but connections are held for the duration of both local + remote txns, so doesn't seem like that would affect this. We don't use pgBouncer, either on the client -> DB or as an in-between on the DB -> DB FDW side.
Through the magic of postgres_fdw, row triggers, and distributed transactions,Can you expand on "distributed transactions" here?
I just mean "using the FDW as described". It is magic that we can get proper transactional + ACID semantics in a distributed system. The FDW really helps our use-case.
But to go deeper, we use the _javascript_ knex adapter and some application-level transaction management that automatically retries a transaction N times when it encounters serialization errors. On this particular endpoint, the emitted SQL for the full transaction looks something like:
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO "devices" ("orgId", "patientId", "deviceId", "data")
VALUES (
'org1',
'patient1',
'device1',
'{"id": "device1", "patientId": "patient1", "serialNumber": "12345", "status": "active" }'
);
INSERT INTO "devices" ("orgId", "patientId", "deviceId", "data")
VALUES (
'org1',
'patient1',
'device2',
'{"id": "device2", "patientId": "patient1", "serialNumber": "67890", "status": "active" }'
);
SELECT * FROM "rootDb"."assets";
-- execute some logic client-side, nothing touching the DB
UPDATE "rootDb"."assets" WHERE ...;
COMMIT;
With I guess the maybe-relevant bits here being that we do some additional reading + writing to the remote / root DB (other tables) subsequently as part of the same txn. The JS driving this also has the unfortunate shortcoming that the two `INSERT` statements run "in parallel", meaning there's a race to execute them (serially) through their shared txn/connection. The ordering shouldn't matter, but this also means that error handling (e.g., when there is a conflict with the `EXCLUDE "serialNumber"` constraint) may not stop the second `INSERT` statement from being attempted (and rejected by postgres). But I think that's all client-side details that shouldn't affect the FDW txn semantics, right?
--
Jake Biesinger
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:39 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:03 PM Jacob Biesinger <jake.biesinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm scratching my head at a few rows in the root DB, where it seems the corresponding tenant transaction rolled back, but the root DB transaction committed...Before I jump into particulars, does this sound like expected behavior?No, it sounds like something is going wrong. Your setup as described should work to keep both sides in sync.Through the magic of postgres_fdw, row triggers, and distributed transactions,Can you expand on "distributed transactions" here?Cheers,Greg
