Re: Logical Replication WIP

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication WIP
Date: 2016-08-09 09:23:28
Message-ID: 895b30a5-59c5-2f32-ea06-34bfd6d1452c@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/08/16 10:13, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 9 August 2016 at 15:59, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The logical replication launcher process and the apply process are
> implemented as a bgworker. Isn't better to have them as an auxiliary
> process like checkpointer, wal writer?
>
>
> I don't think so. The checkpointer, walwriter, autovacuum, etc predate
> bgworkers. I strongly suspect that if they were to be implemented now
> they'd use bgworkers.
>
> Now, perhaps we want a new bgworker "kind" for system workers or some
> other minor tweaks. But basically I think bgworkers are exactly what we
> should be using here.
>

Agreed.

>
> IMO the number of logical replication connections should not be
> limited by max_worker_processes.
>
>
> Well, they *are* worker processes... but I take your point, that that
> setting has been "number of bgworkers the user can run" and it might not
> be expected that logical replication would use the same space.

Again agree, I think we should ultimately go towards what PeterE
suggested in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a2fffd92-6e59-a4eb-dd85-c5865ebca1a0@2ndquadrant.com

>
> The only argument I can see for not using bgworkers is for the
> supervisor worker. It's a singleton that launches the per-database
> workers, and arguably is a job that the postmaster could do better. The
> current design there stems from its origins as an extension. Maybe
> worker management could be simplified a bit as a result. I'd really
> rather not invent yet another new and mostly duplicate category of
> custom workers to achieve that though.
>

It is simplified compared to pglogical (there is only 2 worker types not
3). I don't think it's job of postmaster to scan catalogs however so it
can't really start workers for logical replication. I actually modeled
it more after autovacuum (using bgworkers though) than the original
extension.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-08-09 09:28:05 Re: Logical Replication WIP
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2016-08-09 09:14:40 Re: Logical Replication WIP