At Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:05:36 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> At Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:26:05 +0500, Abbas Butt <abbas.butt@enterprisedb.com> wrote in
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am not sure sending feedback every time before sleep is a good idea,
> > > this might lead to unnecessarily sending more messages. Can we try by
> > > using one-second interval with -s option to see how it behaves? As a
> > > matter of comparison the similar logic in workers.c uses
> > > wal_receiver_timeout to send such an update message rather than
> > > sending it every time before sleep.
>
> Logical walreceiver sends a feedback when walrcv_eceive() doesn't
> receive a byte. If its' not good that pg_recvlogical does the same
> thing, do we need to improve logical walsender's behavior as well?
For the clarity, only the change in the walsender side can stop the
flood.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
