| From: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Date: | 2022-10-06 10:54:23 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB58669BC62F5E504E8E246C28F55C9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Amit,
> Can't we use WaitLatch in the case of SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK as we are
> using it for the same case at some other place in the code? We can use
> the same nap time as we are using in the leader apply worker.
I'm not sure whether such a short nap time is needed or not.
Because unlike leader apply worker, parallel apply workers do not have timeout like wal_receiver_timeout,
so they do not have to check so frequently and send feedback to publisher.
But basically I agree that we can use same logic as leader.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-10-06 10:57:17 | Record SET session in VariableSetStmt |
| Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2022-10-06 10:45:20 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |