Re: 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl is slow and unstable (was Re: speed up a logical replica setup)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl is slow and unstable (was Re: speed up a logical replica setup) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2946218.1722313591@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl is slow and unstable (was Re: speed up a logical replica setup) (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl is slow and unstable (was Re: speed up a logical replica setup)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:48 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> If the problem can be correctly described as "pg_createsubscriber >> takes 10 seconds or so to detect end-of-stream", > The problem can be defined as: "pg_createsubscriber waits for an > additional (new) WAL record to be generated on primary before it > considers the standby is ready for becoming a subscriber". Now, on > busy systems, this shouldn't be a problem but for idle systems, the > time to detect end-of-stream can't be easily defined. Got it. IMO, that absolutely will be a problem for real users, not only test cases. > One of the proposed solutions is that pg_createsubscriber generate a > dummy WAL record on the publisher/primary by using something like > pg_logical_emit_message(), pg_log_standby_snapshot(), etc. This will > fix the problem (BF failures and slow detection for end-of-stream) but > sounds more like a hack. It's undoubtedly a hack, but I like it anyway because it's small, self-contained, and easily removable once we have a better solution. As you say, it seems a bit late in the v17 cycle to be designing anything more invasive. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: