| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots |
| Date: | 2025-09-09 08:07:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFztr_hHUHyKwc2xxoC8o7h9xv6bVsWbt9BCCxyb8sP-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:39 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree. For synchronized_standby_slots, I think it is acceptable to report only
> parsing errors, because slots could be dropped even after validating the slot
> existence during GUC loading. Additionally, we would report WARNINGs for
> non-existent slots during the wait function anyway (e.g., in
> StandbySlotsHaveCaughtup()).
+1, to also address the issue I reported upthread.
As I understand it, only the walsender and the slot sync worker actually
use synchronized_standby_slots. But in the current code, all processes check
for slot existence via the GUC check hook, which wastes cycles. The proposed
change would eliminate that overhead.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2025-09-09 08:16:10 | Re: OAuth client code doesn't work with Google OAuth |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-09-09 07:56:15 | Re: pg_restore --no-policies should not restore policies' comment |