From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Refreshing subscription relation state inside a transaction block |
Date: | 2017-07-26 13:29:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoayW833+ndMkadwgysfxVwoczUWdopTnfhdn_CBvo=YGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think that either of the options you suggested now would be better.
>> We'll need that for stopping the tablesync which is in progress during
>> DropSubscription as well as those will currently still keep running. I
>> guess we could simply just register syscache callback, the only problem
>> with that is we'd need to AcceptInvalidationMessages regularly while we
>> do the COPY which is not exactly free so maybe killing at the end of
>> transaction would be better (both for refresh and drop)?
>
> Attached patch makes table sync worker check its relation subscription
> state at the end of COPY and exits if it has disappeared, instead of
> killing table sync worker in DDL. There is still a problem that a
> table sync worker for a large table can hold a slot for a long time
> even after its state is deleted. But it would be for PG11 item.
Do we still need to do something about this? Should it be an open item?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-26 13:30:30 | Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-26 13:27:51 | Re: [PATCH v3] pg_progress() SQL function to monitor progression of long running SQL queries/utilities |