| From: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin K Biju <kevinkbiju(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add progressive backoff to XactLockTableWait functions |
| Date: | 2025-06-13 01:18:04 |
| Message-ID: | CABPTF7V609C94d3hUBXtE78KsmJPsMrSOQ3Bui3w3P+NMOF2aQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:02 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> When I first suggested this idea, I used 10s as an example for
> the maximum sleep time. But thinking more about it now, 10s might
> be too long. Even if the target transaction has already finished,
> XactLockTableWait() could still wait up to 10 seconds,
> which seems excessive.
>
+1, this could be a problem
> What about using 1s instead? That value is already used as a max
> sleep time in other places, like WaitExceedsMaxStandbyDelay().
>
1s should be generally good
> If we agree on 1s as the max, then using exponential backoff from
> 1ms to 1s after the threshold might not be necessary. It might
> be simpler and sufficient to just sleep for 1s once we hit
> the threshold.
>
That makes sense to me.
Based on that, I think a change like the following could work well.
> Thought?
>
I'll update the patch accordingly.
Best regards,
Xuneng
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-06-13 01:36:11 | Re: pg_dump --with-* options |
| Previous Message | Perumal Raj | 2025-06-13 00:53:10 | Re: Logical Replication slot disappeared after promote Standby |