Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication

From: Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
Date: 2023-07-10 14:22:58
Message-ID: CAGPVpCQ461kSFuKA5mFq=xna82z6vux_TXbW-g5fV0X+ubQ4nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, 6 Tem 2023 Per, 06:56 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 1:48 AM Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 4 Tem 2023 Sal,
> > 08:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
> > > > > But in the later patch the tablesync worker tries to reuse the slot during the
> > > > > synchronization, so in this case the application_name should be same as
> > > > slotname.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough. I am slightly afraid that if we can't show the benefits
> > > > with later patches then we may need to drop them but at this stage I
> > > > feel we need to investigate why those are not helping?
> > >
> > > Agreed. Now I'm planning to do performance testing independently. We can discuss
> > > based on that or Melih's one.
> >
> > Here I attached what I use for performance testing of this patch.
> >
> > I only benchmarked the patch set with reusing connections very roughly
> > so far. But seems like it improves quite significantly. For example,
> > it took 611 ms to sync 100 empty tables, it was 1782 ms without
> > reusing connections.
> > First 3 patches from the set actually bring a good amount of
> > improvement, but not sure about the later patches yet.
> >
>
> I suggest then we should focus first on those 3, get them committed
> and then look at the remaining.
>

That sounds good. I'll do my best to address any review/concern from
reviewers now for the first 3 patches and hopefully those can get
committed first. I'll continue working on the remaining patches later.

--
Melih Mutlu
Microsoft

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-07-10 14:28:40 Re: check_strxfrm_bug()
Previous Message Önder Kalacı 2023-07-10 14:13:42 Re: [Patch] Use *other* indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is FULL