Re: BUG #17580: use pg_terminate_backend to terminate a wal sender process may wait a long time
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17580: use pg_terminate_backend to terminate a wal sender process may wait a long time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LmBSg2E-bbMueh9RJ0GF6zvjFmrvzg-e2UmX7-CGN8vQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17580: use pg_terminate_backend to terminate a wal sender process may wait a long time (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 9:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:02:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote in > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:27 AM 巨鲸 <13207961@qq.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Masahiko, > > > I think maybe you should use filter-tables to filter the test table, likes: > > > filter-tables="public.test666" > > > > > > > Thanks, I could reproduce this issue with the option. And I've > > confirmed this issue exists also in the latest minor version, 10.22, > > and HEAD. > > > > If the plugin filters out all changes, there is no place to check the > > interruptions. So I think it makes sense to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS > > to the main loop of processing logical change. It would be better to > > Agreed. It is not sensible to put the responsibility to call CFI on > output plugins when it returns shortly. > > > do that on the core, rather than the plugin side. I've attached the > > patch. I think we should backpatch to 10. > > I might want to add a comment like "Do not rely on > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls by output plugins". Otherwise it is fine > with me. > BTW, I have pushed a patch for this, see [1]. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to add a comment there but anyway if others also feel the same then I am okay with it. [1] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=f972ec5c285c3bc50d81f8044e08cd636017ab68 -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: