| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Date: | 2025-10-07 10:16:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uDiWOwu0QMBjTSEkSGHE7ew3Sm-5f5-F5pvrNCXe=xCbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 3:24 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello Hackers,
>
> In an offline discussion, I was considering adding a TAP test for this
> patch. However, testing the pg_sync_replication_slots() API’s wait
> logic requires a delay of at least 2 seconds, since that’s the
> interval the API sleeps before retrying. I’m not sure it’s acceptable
> to add a TAP test that increases runtime by 2 seconds.
> I’m also wondering if 2 seconds is too long for the API to wait?
> Should we reduce it to something like 200 ms instead? I’d appreciate
> your feedback.
>
I feel a shorter nap will be good since it is an API and should finish
fast. But too short a nap may result in too many primary pings
specially when primary-slots are not advancing. But that case should
be a rare one. Shall we have a nap of say 500ms? It is neither too
short nor too long. Thoughts?
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-10-07 10:21:41 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2025-10-07 09:53:52 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |