| From: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com" <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure |
| Date: | 2022-02-17 10:35:40 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB586604332882FCCCF784A5B1F5369@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Horiguchi-san,
> I think we just don't need to add the special timeout kind to the
> core. postgres_fdw can use USER_TIMEOUT and it would be suffiction to
> keep running health checking regardless of transaction state then fire
> query cancel if disconnection happens. As I said in the previous main,
> possible extra query cancel woud be safe.
I finally figured out that you mentioned about user-defined timeout system.
Firstly - before posting to hackers - I designed like that,
but I was afraid of an overhead that many FDW registers timeout
and call setitimer() many times. Is it too overcautious?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-17 10:42:24 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-17 09:44:52 | Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |