On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:47 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 11:16 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:52 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the threshold should be based on the commit LSN. Our main
> > > > reason we want to send empty transactions after a certain
> > > > transaction/duration is that we want the restart_lsn to be moving
> > > > forward so that if we need to restart the replication slot we don't
> > > > need to process a lot of extra WAL. So assume we set the threshold
> > > > based on transaction count then there is still a possibility that we
> > > > might process a few very big transactions then we will have to process
> > > > them again after the restart.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Won't the subscriber eventually send the flush location for the large
> > > transactions which will move the restart_lsn?
> >
> > I meant large empty transactions (basically we can not send anything
> > to the subscriber). So my point was if there are only large
> > transactions in the system which we can not stream because those
> > tables are not published. Then keeping threshold based on transaction
> > count will not help much because even if we don't reach the
> > transaction count threshold, we still might need to process a lot of
> > data if we don't stream the commit for the empty transactions. So
> > instead of tracking transaction count can we track LSN, and LSN
> > different since we last stream some change cross the threshold then we
> > will stream the next empty transaction.
> >
>
> You have a point and it may be better to keep threshold based on LSN
> if we want to keep any threshold, but keeping on transaction count
> seems to be a bit straightforward. Let us see if anyone else has any
> opinion on this matter?
Ok, that make sense.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com