Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LMUwzoq=pwr_O=9nP4cOe5+q=QznWLLdkPCpq8kaB7bQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 5:13 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:49 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Shorter nap times mean higher possibility of wasted CPU cycles - that > > should be avoided. Doing that for a test's sake seems wrong. Is there > > a way that the naptime can controlled by external factors such as > > likelihood of an advanced slot (just firing bullets in the dark) or is > > the naptime controllable by user interface like GUC? The test can use > > those interfaces. > > > > Yes, we can control naptime based on the fact whether any slots are > being advanced on primary. This is how a slotsync worker does. It > keeps on doubling the naptime if there is no activity on primary > starting from 200ms till max of 30 sec. As soon as activity happens, > naptime is reduced to 200ms again. > Is there a reason why we don't want to use the same naptime strategy for API and worker? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: