Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is comingfor table which is already removed

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is comingfor table which is already removed
Дата
Msg-id ab7c87a3-fd4e-b387-fac6-6d1ba5a06a8c@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is comingfor table which is already removed  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is comingfor table which is already removed  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 6/11/17 21:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for the patch. The patch fixes this issue but it takes a
> long time to done ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION when
> max_sync_workers_per_subscription is set high value. Because the
> removing entry from pg_subscription_rel and launching a new table sync
> worker select a subscription relation state in the same order, the
> former doesn't catch up with latter.
> For example in my environment, when I test the following step with
> max_sync_workers_per_subscription = 15, all table sync workers were
> launched once and then killed. How about removing the entry from
> pg_subscription_rel in the inverse order?

I have committed the patch as is.  Optimizations might be possible, but
let's keep in mind that the use case of changing the subscription right
after it was created is a pretty marginal case to begin with.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alex Kliukin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Why restore_command is called for existing files inpg_xlog?
Следующее
От: Ashutosh Bapat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData