Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/17 06:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Attached the latest patch. It didn't actually necessary to change
>> GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations. I just changed the logic refreshing
>> the sync table state list.
>
> I think this was the right direction, but then I got worried about
> having a loop within a loop to copy over the last start times.  If you
> have very many tables, that could be a big nested loop.
>
> Here is an alternative proposal to store the last start times in a hash
> table.
>

If we use wal_retrieve_retry_interval for the table sync worker, I
think we need to update the documentation as well. Currently the
documentation mentions that a bit, but since
wal_retrieve_retry_interval will be used at three different places for
different reason it would confuse the user.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center