| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com" <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com" <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com" <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "euler(at)eulerto(dot)com" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, "m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br" <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Date: | 2023-02-13 16:47:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20230213164712.frhyc4hp7ece7zns@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-11 05:44:47 +0000, Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2023 11:10 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Has there been any discussion about whether this is actually best
> > implemented on the client side? You could alternatively implement it on the
> > sender.
> >
> > That'd have quite a few advantages, I think - you e.g. wouldn't remove the
> > ability to *receive* and send feedback messages. We'd not end up filling up
> > the network buffer with data that we'll not process anytime soon.
> Thanks for your comments !
>
> We have discussed about the publisher side idea around here [1]
> but, we chose the current direction. Kindly have a look at the discussion.
>
> If we apply the delay on the publisher, then
> it can lead to extra delay where we don't need to apply.
> The current proposed approach can take other loads or factors
> (network, busyness of the publisher, etc) into account
> because it calculates the required delay on the subscriber.
I don't think it's OK to just loose the ability to read / reply to keepalive
messages.
I think as-is we seriously consider to just reject the feature, adding too
much complexity, without corresponding gain.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-13 16:50:17 | Re: Making Vars outer-join aware |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-02-13 16:46:59 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |