Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
От | shveta malik |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJpy0uDiWOwu0QMBjTSEkSGHE7ew3Sm-5f5-F5pvrNCXe=xCbg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 3:24 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Hackers, > > In an offline discussion, I was considering adding a TAP test for this > patch. However, testing the pg_sync_replication_slots() API’s wait > logic requires a delay of at least 2 seconds, since that’s the > interval the API sleeps before retrying. I’m not sure it’s acceptable > to add a TAP test that increases runtime by 2 seconds. > I’m also wondering if 2 seconds is too long for the API to wait? > Should we reduce it to something like 200 ms instead? I’d appreciate > your feedback. > I feel a shorter nap will be good since it is an API and should finish fast. But too short a nap may result in too many primary pings specially when primary-slots are not advancing. But that case should be a rare one. Shall we have a nap of say 500ms? It is neither too short nor too long. Thoughts? thanks Shveta
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: