| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
| Date: | 2024-04-29 11:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JJq_ER6Kq_H=jKHR75QPRd8y9_D=RtYw=aPYKMfqLi9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:23 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 6:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:47 AM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, at 4:12 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS even needed?
> > Why isn't recovery_timeout enough to decide if wait_for_end_recovery()
> > waited long enough?
> >
> >
> > It was an attempt to decoupled a connection failure (that keeps streaming the
> > WAL) from recovery timeout. The NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS guarantees that if the primary
> > is gone during the standby recovery process, there is a way to bail out.
> >
>
> I think we don't need to check primary if the WAL corresponding to
> consistent_lsn is already present on the standby. Shouldn't we first
> check that? Once we ensure that the required WAL is copied, just
> checking server_is_in_recovery() should be sufficient. I feel that
> will be a direct way of ensuring what is required rather than
> indirectly verifying the same (by checking pg_stat_wal_receiver) as we
> are doing currently.
>
>
> How would you check it? WAL file? During recovery, you are not allowed to use
> pg_current_wal_lsn.
>
How about pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-29 12:07:58 | Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-04-29 11:58:09 | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |