Re: speed up a logical replica setup
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KPoLUUGzjw9eEQd56LUAf2QQj8BqMcsoSe6vycB5CYUQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: speed up a logical replica setup ("Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: speed up a logical replica setup
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:47 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, at 4:12 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS even needed? > Why isn't recovery_timeout enough to decide if wait_for_end_recovery() > waited long enough? > > > It was an attempt to decoupled a connection failure (that keeps streaming the > WAL) from recovery timeout. The NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS guarantees that if the primary > is gone during the standby recovery process, there is a way to bail out. > I think we don't need to check primary if the WAL corresponding to consistent_lsn is already present on the standby. Shouldn't we first check that? Once we ensure that the required WAL is copied, just checking server_is_in_recovery() should be sufficient. I feel that will be a direct way of ensuring what is required rather than indirectly verifying the same (by checking pg_stat_wal_receiver) as we are doing currently. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: