| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |
| Date: | 2022-12-18 23:36:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20221218233607.GB1476904@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:47:21PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I tried setting wal_retrieve_retry_interval to 1ms for all TAP tests
> (similar to what was done in 2710ccd), and I noticed that the recovery
> tests consistently took much longer. Upon further inspection, it looks
> like the same (or a very similar) race condition described in e5d494d's
> commit message [0]. With some added debug logs, I see that all of the
> callers of MaybeStartWalReceiver() complete before SIGCHLD is processed, so
> ServerLoop() waits for a minute before starting the WAL receiver.
>
> A simple fix is to have DetermineSleepTime() take the WalReceiverRequested
> flag into consideration. The attached 0002 patch shortens the sleep time
> to 100ms if it looks like we are waiting on a SIGCHLD. I'm not certain
> this is the best approach, but it seems to fix the tests.
This seems to have somehow broken the archiving tests on Windows, so
obviously I owe some better analysis here. I didn't see anything obvious
in the logs, but I will continue to dig.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-12-18 23:38:03 | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-18 23:30:30 | Re: Standard REGEX functions |