public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <[email protected]>
Cc: vignesh C <[email protected]>
Cc: Euler Taveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Melih Mutlu <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:22:40 +0000
Message-ID: <TYAPR01MB58668CC2AFEDD8BE77C07BE6F5059@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1KMKt+_Qjw=WYtDXUg-tHr6hSFQZTZFVPrUZ=suK2j5kA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-JLwYOYwL=XTyAXKiH5CtM_Vm8KjKh7aaitCKvmCh4rzr5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1JW+_Pff3TOaBqbOqn-LbMT2kj2bpw-a88ZSTdbTZ-aMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB-JLwas_=FGr8bXKD7K6g0=RDUFuYU71TLLGTsQ-DTRNpq1QQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1KSBGrLKR63iS38Bkvjq6fBCWzbuD6R15kEWdmd8aj3mw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAGPVpCQgE1e0JQFHbxSpfj82HQfAqGmhG=yru3mX2tcmbfqHYA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYWPR01MB83628B9AE512989DCEC67F3FED659@TYWPR01MB8362.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALDaNm0aZeUb7LmdSc9aKkNDNdhabWEakB5bOT3bogrFAaO+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1J6xLUJNR1tXEidnpWFkX8afF40MCT4x7vgojKXBtwZMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+0HciGUr8jqOBDcQFiEBU9qErYZraGskj_tQ1bGc2Ytw@mail.gmail.com>
<TYAPR01MB5866E747C3C5C1D99F88D179F5059@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAA4eK1KMKt+_Qjw=WYtDXUg-tHr6hSFQZTZFVPrUZ=suK2j5kA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Amit,
> > > It seems to me Kuroda-San has proposed this change [1] to fix the test
> > > but it is not clear to me why such a change is required. Why can't
> > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() after waiting, followed by the existing below
> > > code [2] in LogicalRepApplyLoop() sufficient to handle parameter
> > > updates?
(I forgot to say, this change was not proposed by me. I said that there should be
modified. I thought workers should wake up after the transaction was committed.)
> So, why only honor the 'disable' option of the subscription? For
> example, one can change 'min_apply_delay' and it seems
> recoveryApplyDelay() honors a similar change in the recovery
> parameter. Is there a way to set the latch of the worker process, so
> that it can recheck if anything is changed?
I have not considered about it, but seems reasonable. We may be able to
do maybe_reread_subscription() if subscription parameters are changed
and latch is set.
Currently, IIUC we try to disable subscription regardless of the state, but
should we avoid to reread catalog if workers are handling the transactions,
like LogicalRepApplyLoop()?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
view thread (93+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
In-Reply-To: <TYAPR01MB58668CC2AFEDD8BE77C07BE6F5059@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox