Re: Add WALRCV_CONNECTING state to walreceiver

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 12:14 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 06:17:34PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 4:55 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 1:14 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > V2 makes the transition from WALRCV_CONNECTING to STREAMING only when
> > > > > the first valid WAL record is processed by the startup process. A new
> > > > > function WalRcvSetStreaming is introduced to enable the transition.
> > > >
> > > > The original patch set STREAMING in XLogWalRcvFlush(). XLogWalRcvFlush()
> > > > callee XLogWalRcvSendReply() already fetches applyPtr to send a status
> > > > message. So I would try the following before involving the startup process
> > > > like v2 does:
> > > >
> > > > 1. store the applyPtr when we enter CONNECTING
> > > > 2. force a status message as long as we remain in CONNECTING
> > > > 3. become STREAMING when applyPtr differs from the one stored at (1)
> > >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion. Using XLogWalRcvSendReply() for the
> > > transition could make sense. My concern before is about latency in a
> > > rare case: if the first flush completes but applyPtr hasn't advanced
> > > yet at the time of check and then the flush stalls after that, we
> > > might wait up to wal_receiver_status_interval (default 10s) before the
> > > next check or indefinitely if (wal_receiver_status_interval <= 0).
> > > This could be mitigated by shortening the wakeup interval while in
> > > CONNECTING (step 2), which reduces worst-case latency to ~1 second.
> > > Given that monitoring typically doesn't require sub-second precision,
> > > this approach could be feasible.
> > >
> > > case WALRCV_WAKEUP_REPLY:
> > > if (WalRcv->walRcvState == WALRCV_CONNECTING)
> > > {
> > > /* Poll frequently while CONNECTING to avoid long latency */
> > > wakeup[reason] = TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(now, 1000);
> > > }
> > >
> > > > A possible issue with all patch versions: when the primary is writing no WAL
> > > > and the standby was caught up before this walreceiver started, CONNECTING
> > > > could persist for an unbounded amount of time. Only actual primary WAL
> > > > generation would move the walreceiver to STREAMING. This relates to your
> > > > above point about high latency. If that's a concern, perhaps this change
> > > > deserves a total of two new states, CONNECTING and a state that represents
> > > > "connection exists, no WAL yet applied"?
> > >
> > > Yes, this could be an issue. Using two states would help address it.
> > > That said, when the primary is idle in this case, we might end up
> > > repeatedly polling the apply status in the state before streaming if
> > > we implement the 1s short-interval checking like above, which could be
> > > costful. However, If we do not implement it &&
> > > wal_receiver_status_interval is set to < 0 && flush stalls, the
> > > walreceiver could stay in the pre-streaming state indefinitely even if
> > > streaming did occur, which violates the semantics. Do you think this
> > > is a valid concern or just an artificial edge case?
> >
> > After looking more closely, I found that true indefinite waiting
> > requires ALL of:
> >
> > wal_receiver_status_interval <= 0 (disables status updates)
> > wal_receiver_timeout <= 0
> > Primary sends no keepalives
> > No more WAL arrives after the first failed-check flush
> > Startup never sets force_reply
> >
> > which is quite impossible and artificial, sorry for the noise here.
>
> Even if indefinite wait is a negligible concern, you identified a lot of
> intricacy that I hadn't pictured. That makes your startup-process-driven
> version potentially more attractive. Forcing status messages like I was
> thinking may also yield an unwanted flurry of them if the startup process is
> slow. Let's see what the patch reviewer thinks.

OK, both approaches are presented for review. Adding two states to
avoid the confusion of the status caused by the stall you depicted
earlier seems reasonable to me. So, I adapted it in v3.

--
Best,
Xuneng