| From: | Andrey Silitskiy <a(dot)silitskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
| Date: | 2025-11-20 07:05:05 |
| Message-ID: | 091704a7-dc44-45c2-874a-7eec7fba6071@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:46 PM Fujii Masao
<masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> How about using PGC_USERSET instead of PGC_SIGHUP, similar to
> wal_sender_timeout?
Dear Fujii, thanks for the review!
Current version of the patch suggests changing the shutdown mode of
logical senders globally for the server. As I wrote above: patch
excludes receiver's side decision whether the sender is allowed to hang
on shutdown. In addition, it provides simpler administration of a system.
But I'm ready to hear other opinions on this matter.
> Shouldn't physical replication walsenders also honor this parameter?
> For example, the immediate mode seems useful for physical walsenders
connected
> from a very remote standby (e.g., DR site). Thought?
As discussed earlier, physical replication is more sensitive to data
divergence and there is no problem with apply_worker and backend lock
conflict, which makes the use-case more narrow.
By the way, does anyone find the name of IMMEDIATE mode too similar to
the "pg_ctl stop" mode and a little confusing? Initially, I planned
to call this mode WALSND_SHUTDOWN_MODE_FORCED instead of
WALSND_SHUTDOWN_MODE_IMMEDIATE.
Best Regards,
Andrey Silitskiy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-11-20 07:12:18 | Re: Trying out <stdatomic.h> |
| Previous Message | Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) | 2025-11-20 06:57:47 | RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |