| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Apparent walsender bug triggered by logical replication |
| Date: | 2017-06-30 01:31:31 |
| Message-ID: | 8a2b6337-a92f-44e3-a068-673719336613@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/06/17 02:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also kind of wondering why the "behind the apply" path out of
> LogicalRepSyncTableStart exists at all; as far as I can tell we'd be much
> better off if we just let the sync worker exit always as soon as it's done
> the initial sync, letting any extra catchup happen later. The main thing
> the current behavior seems to be accomplishing is to monopolize one of the
> scarce max_sync_workers_per_subscription slots for the benefit of a single
> table, for longer than necessary. Plus it adds additional complicated
> interprocess signaling.
>
Hmm, I don't understand what you mean here. The "letting any extra
catchup happen later" would never happen if the sync is behind apply as
apply has already skipped relevant transactions.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-30 02:46:30 | Re: Apparent walsender bug triggered by logical replication |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-30 00:56:34 | Re: Broken hint bits (freeze) |