Re: Improving the latch handling between logical replication launcher and worker processes.

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving the latch handling between logical replication launcher and worker processes.
Date: 2024-07-08 12:32:01
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JWSjh6dyjpnL+wmME8EFS=5diRkP-mTci6Mpx0eCKR-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:47 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 18:38, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> >
>
> > As an alternative, smaller fix, I think we could do the attached. It
> > forces the launcher's main loop to do another iteration, if it calls
> > logicalrep_worker_launch(). That extra iteration should pick up any
> > missed notifications.
>
> This also works.
>

The minor drawback would be that in many cases the extra iteration
would not lead to anything meaningful.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2024-07-08 12:36:45 Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-07-08 12:30:12 Re: Partial aggregates pushdown