| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl is slow and unstable (was Re: speed up a logical replica setup) |
| Date: | 2024-07-29 20:18:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2871796.1722284312@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 2:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... However, I added a new open item about how the
>> 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl test is slow and still unstable.
> But that said, I see no commits in the commit history which purport to
> improve performance, so I guess the performance is probably still not
> what you want, though I am not clear on the details.
My concern is described at [1]:
>> I have a different but possibly-related complaint: why is
>> 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl so miserably slow? On my machine it
>> runs for a bit over 19 seconds, which seems completely out of line
>> (for comparison, 010_pg_basebackup.pl takes 6 seconds, and the
>> other test scripts in this directory take much less). It looks
>> like most of the blame falls on this step:
>>
>> [12:47:22.292](14.534s) ok 28 - run pg_createsubscriber on node S
>>
>> AFAICS the amount of data being replicated is completely trivial,
>> so that it doesn't make any sense for this to take so long --- and
>> if it does, that suggests that this tool will be impossibly slow
>> for production use. But I suspect there is a logic flaw causing
>> this. Speculating wildly, perhaps that is related to the failure
>> Alexander spotted?
The followup discussion in that thread made it sound like there's
some fairly fundamental deficiency in how wait_for_end_recovery()
detects end-of-recovery. I'm not too conversant with the details
though, and it's possible that pg_createsubscriber is just falling
foul of a pre-existing infelicity.
If the problem can be correctly described as "pg_createsubscriber
takes 10 seconds or so to detect end-of-stream", then it's probably
only an annoyance for testing and not something that would be fatal
in the real world. I'm not quite sure if that's accurate, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-07-29 20:38:45 | Re: Optimize mul_var() for var1ndigits >= 8 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-07-29 20:16:33 | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |