From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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: speed up a logical replica setup |
Date: | 2024-05-23 08:54:25 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+7M9Vk4qxTTnWj+9Hy9jooWsgzu4jY8Cr_PDCMFx=H3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:46 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024, at 8:19 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > v2-0002: not changed
> >
>
> We have added more tries to see if the primary_slot_name becomes
> active but I think it is still fragile because it is possible on slow
> machines that the required slot didn't become active even after more
> retries. I have raised the same comment previously [2] and asked an
> additional question but didn't get any response.
>
>
> Following the same line that simplifies the code, we can: (a) add a loop in
> check_subscriber() that waits until walreceiver is available on subscriber or
> (b) use a timeout. The main advantage of (a) is that the primary slot is already
> available but I'm afraid we need a escape mechanism for the loop (timeout?).
>
Sorry, it is not clear to me why we need any additional loop in
check_subscriber(), aren't we speaking about the problem in
check_publisher() function?
Why in the first place do we need to ensure that primary_slot_name is
active on the primary? You mentioned something related to WAL
retention but I don't know how that is related to this tool's
functionality. If at all, we are bothered about WAL retention on the
primary that should be the WAL corresponding to consistent_lsn
computed by setup_publisher() but this check doesn't seem to ensure
that.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 陈亚杰 | 2024-05-23 09:08:05 | about cross-compiling issue |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-05-23 08:40:35 | Re: State of pg_createsubscriber |