Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | baf01af3-5a8e-4551-88f3-ac312c490716@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 11/28/23 4:13 AM, shveta malik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) >> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> >>> Here is the updated version(v39_2) which include all the changes made in 0002. >>> Please use for review, and sorry for the confusion. >>> >> >> --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c >> +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c >> @@ -8,20 +8,27 @@ >> * src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c >> * >> * NOTES >> - * This module contains the logical replication worker launcher which >> - * uses the background worker infrastructure to start the logical >> - * replication workers for every enabled subscription. >> + * This module contains the replication worker launcher which >> + * uses the background worker infrastructure to: >> + * a) start the logical replication workers for every enabled subscription >> + * when not in standby_mode. >> + * b) start the slot sync worker for logical failover slots synchronization >> + * from the primary server when in standby_mode. >> >> I was wondering do we really need a launcher on standby to invoke >> sync-slot worker. If so, why? I guess it may be required for previous >> versions where we were managing work for multiple slot-sync workers >> which is also questionable in the sense of whether launcher is the >> right candidate for the same but now with the single slot-sync worker, >> it doesn't seem worth having it. What do you think? >> >> -- > > Yes, earlier a manager process was needed to manage multiple slot-sync > workers and distribute load among them, but now that does not seem > necessary. I gave it a try (PoC) and it seems to work well. If there > are no objections to this approach, I can share the patch soon. > +1 on this new approach, thanks! Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: