On Thursday, October 6, 2022 6:54 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人 <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Amit,
>
> > Can't we use WaitLatch in the case of SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK as we are
> > using it for the same case at some other place in the code? We can use
> > the same nap time as we are using in the leader apply worker.
>
> I'm not sure whether such a short nap time is needed or not.
> Because unlike leader apply worker, parallel apply workers do not have timeout
> like wal_receiver_timeout, so they do not have to check so frequently and send
> feedback to publisher.
> But basically I agree that we can use same logic as leader.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I tried to add a WaitLatch, but it seems affect the performance
because the Latch might not be set when leader send some
message to parallel apply worker which means it will wait until
timeout.
I feel we'd better change it back to sync mode and do the ProcessConfigFile()
after receiving the message and before applying the change which seems also
address the problem.
Best regards,
Hou zj