From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sergey Belyashov <sergey(dot)belyashov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #19041: Logical replication locks wal processing |
Date: | 2025-09-03 12:45:13 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uwgQ=HVFRdz2=JUVgQHCPubatKrK14xD-0Ov71HRpbTQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 5:40 PM Sergey Belyashov
<sergey(dot)belyashov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your explanation. It is what I'm about.
> Is it possible to optimize something to prevent decoding the whole WAL
> if there are no affected tables there? For example, just skip a lot of
> WAL blocks with unpublished tables. And/or combine WAL decoding in one
> separate process for each publication which works for all active
> affected subscriptions, if subscription is not active (server down or
> too busy) then it is switched to legacy selfdecoding.
IMHO this is a valid optimization to have a single decoding worker and
all the walsender can get the required WALs decoded by a single
worker. I think it's been discussed in the past as well and we might
do it sometime in the future but I don't see anything is in progress
for this as of now.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-03 14:48:17 | Re: BUG #18960: Mistake in test test_simple_pipeline (libpq_pipeline.c) |
Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-09-03 12:28:30 | Re: BUG #18960: Mistake in test test_simple_pipeline (libpq_pipeline.c) |