Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> My first thought is that the latter two uses should be moved to a new
> parameter, and the apply launcher should store the last start time for each
> apply worker like the apply workers do for the table-sync workers. In any
> case, it probably makes sense to lower this parameter's value for testing
> so that tests that restart these workers frequently aren't waiting for so
> long.
> I can put a patch together if this seems like a reasonable direction to go.
No, I'm still of the opinion that waiting for the launcher to timeout
before doing something is fundamentally wrong design. We should signal
it when we want it to do something. That's not different from what
you're fixing about the workers; why don't you see that it's appropriate
for the launcher too?
regards, tom lane