| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |
| Date: | 2022-11-14 20:42:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+j=WDMmGZ3ANBvvRhtjOgHGhq475fAB2Qqmz14WO0f2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:01 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there any reason we should wait for 100ms before sending the initial
> reply? ISTM the previous behavior essentially caused the first reply (and
> feedback message) to be sent at the first opportunity after streaming
> begins. My instinct is to do something like the attached. I wonder if we
> ought to do something similar in the ConfigReloadPending path in case
> hot_standby_feedback is being turned on.
That works for 020_pg_receivewal. I wonder if there are also tests
that stream a bit of WAL first and then do wait_for_catchup that were
previously benefiting from the 100ms-after-startup message by
scheduling luck (as in, that was usually enough for replay)? I might
go and teach Cluster.pm to log how much time is wasted in
wait_for_catchup to get some observability, and then try to figure out
how to optimise it properly. We could perhaps put the 100ms duct tape
back temporarily though, if necessary.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-14 20:58:06 | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |
| Previous Message | Ankit Kumar Pandey | 2022-11-14 20:16:00 | Change error to warning and increase thresholds of tsearch |