On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:18 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Amit,
>
> > > Firstly I considered 2, but I thought 1 seemed to be better.
> > > PSA the updated patch.
> > >
> >
> > I think even for logical replication we should check whether there is
> > any pending WAL (via pq_is_send_pending()) to be sent. Otherwise, what
> > is the point to send the done message? Also, the caller of
> > WalSndDone() already has that check which is another reason why I
> > can't see why you didn't have the same check in function WalSndDone().
>
> I did not have strong opinion around here. Fixed.
>
> > BTW, even after fixing this, I think logical replication will behave
> > differently when due to some reason (like time-delayed replication)
> > send buffer gets full and walsender is not able to send data. I think
> > this will be less of an issue with physical replication because there
> > is a separate walreceiver process to flush the WAL which doesn't wait
> > but the same is not true for logical replication. Do you have any
> > thoughts on this matter?
>
> Yes, it may happen even if this work is done. And your analysis is correct that
> the receive buffer is rarely full in physical replication because walreceiver
> immediately flush WALs.
>
Okay, but what happens in the case of physical replication when
synchronous_commit = remote_apply? In that case, won't it ensure that
apply has also happened? If so, then shouldn't the time delay feature
also cause a similar problem for physical replication as well?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
