On Sun, 2023-04-02 at 10:11 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> I was thinking that, if a new LogicalWalSndWakeup() replaces
> "ConditionVariableBroadcast(&XLogRecoveryCtl->replayedCV);"
> in ApplyWalRecord() then, it could be possible that some walsender(s)
> are requested to wake up while they are actually doing decoding (but
> I might be wrong).
I don't think that's a problem, right?
We are concerned about wakeups when they happen repeatedly when there's
no work to do, or when the wakeup doesn't happen when it should (and we
need to wait for a timeout).
> >
> > Currently, we wake up walsenders only after writing some WAL
> > records
> > at the time of flush, so won't it be better to wake up only after
> > applying some WAL records rather than after applying each record?
>
> Yeah that would be better.
Why? If the walsender is asleep, and there's work to be done, why not
wake it up?
If it's already doing work, and the latch gets repeatedly set, that
doesn't look like a problem either. The comment on SetLatch() says:
/*
* Sets a latch and wakes up anyone waiting on it.
*
* This is cheap if the latch is already set, otherwise not so much.
Regards,
Jeff Davis