Suppress further attempts to read ahead in the WAL if we run out of
data, until the records already decoded have been replayed. This
restores the traditional behavior for continuous archive recovery, which
is to retry the failing restore_command only every 5 seconds. With the
coding in 5dc0418f, we would start retrying every time through the
recovery loop when our WAL decoding window hit the end of the current
segment and we tried to look ahead into a not-yet-available next file.
That was very slow.
Also change the no_readahead_until mechanism to use <= rather than <,
which seems more useful. Otherwise we'd either get one extra unwanted
retry of restore_command, or we'd need to add 1 to an LSN.
No change in behavior for regular streaming. That was already limited
by the flushedUpto variable, which won't be updated until we replay what
we have already.
Reported by Andres Freund while analyzing the failure of a TAP test on
build farm animal skink (investigation ongoing but probably due to
otherwise unrelated timing bugs triggered by this slowness magnified by
valgrind).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220409005910.alw46xqmmgny2sgr%40alap3.anarazel.de
Introduce a new GUC recovery_prefetch. When enabled, look ahead in the
WAL and try to initiate asynchronous reading of referenced data blocks
that are not yet cached in our buffer pool. For now, this is done with
posix_fadvise(), which has several caveats. Since not all OSes have
that system call, "try" is provided so that it can be enabled where
available. Better mechanisms for asynchronous I/O are possible in later
work.
Set to "try" for now for test coverage. Default setting to be finalized
before release.
The GUC wal_decode_buffer_size limits the distance we can look ahead in
bytes of decoded data.
The existing GUC maintenance_io_concurrency is used to limit the number
of concurrent I/Os allowed, based on pessimistic heuristics used to
infer that I/Os have begun and completed. We'll also not look more than
maintenance_io_concurrency * 4 block references ahead.
Reviewed-by: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> (earlier version)
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> (earlier version)
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> (earlier version)
Tested-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> (earlier version)
Tested-by: Jakub Wartak <Jakub.Wartak@tomtom.com> (earlier version)
Tested-by: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> (earlier version)
Tested-by: Sait Talha Nisanci <Sait.Nisanci@microsoft.com> (earlier version)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJ4VJN8ttxScUFM8dOKX0BrBiboo5uz1cq%3DAovOddfHpA%40mail.gmail.com
