| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls |
| Date: | 2020-04-20 10:24:28 |
| Message-ID: | 7492aa54-dabf-3791-cbc4-e653760a2288@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/04/20 16:02, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:30:08PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> + * Block if we have unsent data. XXX For logical replication, let
>> + * WalSndWaitForWal(), handle any other blocking; idle receivers need
>> + * its additional actions. For physical replication, also block if
>> + * caught up; its send_data does not block.
>>
>> It might be better to s/WalSndWaitForWal()/send_data()? Because not only
>> WalSndWaitForWal() but also WalSndWriteData() seems to handle the blocking.
>> WalSndWriteData() is called also under send_data, i.e., XLogSendLogical().
>
> Thanks for reviewing. WalSndWriteData() blocks when we have unsent data,
> which is the same cause for blocking in WalSndLoop(). Since the comment you
> quote says we let WalSndWaitForWal() "handle any other blocking", I don't
> think your proposed change makes it more correct.
I was misreading this as something like "any other blocking than
the blocking in WalSndLoop()". Ok, I have no more comments on
the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2020-04-20 10:38:46 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Prabhat Sahu | 2020-04-20 10:18:41 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |