| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 14:22:31 |
| Message-ID: | 0c475de6-cbc2-1ec6-2b40-6a21113807de@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/13/17 06:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached the latest patch. It didn't actually necessary to change
> GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations. I just changed the logic refreshing
> the sync table state list.
I think this was the right direction, but then I got worried about
having a loop within a loop to copy over the last start times. If you
have very many tables, that could be a big nested loop.
Here is an alternative proposal to store the last start times in a hash
table.
(We also might want to lower the interval for the test suite, because
there are intentional failures in there, and this patch or one like it
will cause the tests to run a few seconds longer.)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Wait-between-tablesync-worker-restarts.patch | invalid/octet-stream | 3.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-04-18 14:23:42 | Re: Inadequate parallel-safety check for SubPlans |
| Previous Message | Keith Fiske | 2017-04-18 14:14:09 | Re: Passing values to a dynamic background worker |