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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:42:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<8c7afb37-be73-c6bd-80bc-e87522f0461a@2ndquadrant.com>
>> On 06/04/17 16:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> >>> I prefer subscription option than GUC. Something like following.
>> >>>
>> >>> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION s1 CONNECTION 'blah'
>> >>>        PUBLICATION p1 WITH (noreconnect = true);
>> >>>
>> >>> Stored in pg_subscription?
>>
>> I don't think that's a very good solution, you'd lose replication on
>> every network glitch, upstream server restart, etc.
>
> Yes, you're right. This would work if apply worker distinguishes
> permanent error. But it is overkill so far.
>
>> > I've added this as an open item, and sent a patch for this.
>> >
>>
>> I am not exactly sure what's the open item from this thread. To use the
>> wal_retrieve_interval to limit table sync restarts?
>
> It's not me. I also don't think this critical.
>

Thank you for the comment.

It's not critical but it could be problem. So I thought we should fix
it before the PostgreSQL 10 release. If it's not appropriate as an
open item I'll remove it.

Regards,

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