Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 12:38 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:19 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>> I was also surprised to note that the Startup process is not signaled by
>>>>>> WALReceiver when new WAL is received, so it will continue sleeping even
>>>>>> though it has work to do.
>>>>> I don't think this is so useful in 9.0 since synchronous replication
>>>>> (i.e., transaction commit wait for WAL to be replayed by the standby)
>>>>> is not supported.
>>>> Well, it would still be useful, as it would shorten the delay. But yeah,
>>>> there's a delay in asynchronous replication anyway, so we decided to
>>>> keep it simple and just poll. It's not ideal and definitely needs to be
>>>> revisited for synchronous mode in the future. Same for walsenders.
>>> A signal seems fairly straightforward to me, the archiver did this in
>>> 8.0 and it was not considered complex then. Quite why it would be
>>> complex here is not clear.
>> The other side of the problem is that walsender polls too. Eliminating
>> the delay from walreceiver doesn't buy you much unless you eliminate the
>> delay from the walsender too. And things get complicated there. Do you
>> signal the walsenders at every commit? That would be a lot of volume,
>> and adds more work for every normal transaction in the primary. Maybe
>> not much, but it would be one more thing to worry about and test.
> You are trying to connect two unrelated things.
> We can argue that the WALSender's delay allows it to build up a good
> sized batch of work to transfer.
> Having the Startup process wait does not buy us anything at all.
> Currently if the Startup process finishes more quickly than the
> WALreceiver it will wait for 100ms.
Ok, here's a patch to add signaling between walreceiver and startup
process. It indeed isn't much code, and seems pretty safe, so if no-one
objects strongly, I'll commit. It won't help on platforms where
pg_usleep() isn't interrupted by signals, though, but we can live with that.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2010-04-06 13:07:06|
|Subject: Re: SELECT constant; takes 15x longer on 9.0?|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-04-06 12:25:49|
|Subject: Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-04-06 13:15:53|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check compulsory parameters
in recovery.conf in standby_mode, per|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-06 12:09:37|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check compulsory parameters in recovery.conf in standby_mode, per|