From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Type of wait events WalReceiverWaitStart and WalSenderWaitForWAL |
Date: | 2021-03-19 05:01:32 |
Message-ID: | 29b2a034-80b5-d8b3-4681-a87c298a4e4a@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/03/18 18:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> WAIT_EVENT_WAL_RECEIVER_WAIT_START is waiting for waiting for starup
>> process to kick me. So it may be either IPC or Activity. Since
>> walreceiver hasn't sent anything to startup, so it's activity, rather
>> than IPC. However, the behavior can be said that it convey a piece of
>> information from startup to wal receiver so it also can be said to be
>> an IPC. (That is the reason why I don't object for IPC.)
>
> IMO this should be IPC because walreceiver is mainly waiting for the
> interaction with the startup process, during this wait event. Since you can
> live with IPC, probably our consensus is to use IPC?
If this is ok, I'd like to apply the attached patch at first.
This patch changes the type of WAIT_EVENT_WAL_RECEIVER_WAIT_START
from Client to IPC.
BTW, I found that recently WalrcvExit wait event was introduced.
But this name is not consistent with other events. I'm thinking that
it's better to rename it to WalReceiverExit.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Change-the-type-of-WalReceiverWaitStart-wait-event-f.patch | text/plain | 3.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-03-19 05:28:46 | Re: fdatasync performance problem with large number of DB files |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2021-03-19 04:53:34 | Re: Using COPY FREEZE in pgbench |