Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
Date: 2025-10-09 08:43:48
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LMUwzoq=pwr_O=9nP4cOe5+q=QznWLLdkPCpq8kaB7bQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 5:13 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:49 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Shorter nap times mean higher possibility of wasted CPU cycles - that
> > should be avoided. Doing that for a test's sake seems wrong. Is there
> > a way that the naptime can controlled by external factors such as
> > likelihood of an advanced slot (just firing bullets in the dark) or is
> > the naptime controllable by user interface like GUC? The test can use
> > those interfaces.
> >
>
> Yes, we can control naptime based on the fact whether any slots are
> being advanced on primary. This is how a slotsync worker does. It
> keeps on doubling the naptime if there is no activity on primary
> starting from 200ms till max of 30 sec. As soon as activity happens,
> naptime is reduced to 200ms again.
>

Is there a reason why we don't want to use the same naptime strategy
for API and worker?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2025-10-09 08:45:24 Re: Enhance Makefiles to rebuild objects on map file changes
Previous Message Rahila Syed 2025-10-09 08:43:25 Re: Enhancing Memory Context Statistics Reporting