Re: Logical replication timeout problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabrice Chapuis
Subject Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Date
Msg-id CAA5-nLDFEVobkCiLDDhmumfFn1zPuuXU_wyv1E2f7P8umHEwhg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Logical replication timeout problem  ("wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks for your patch, it works well in my test lab.
I added the definition extern in wal_sender_timeout; in the output_plugin.h file for compilation works.
I tested the patch for version 10 which is currently in production on our systems.
The functions below are only in master branch:
pgoutput_prepare_txn functions,
pgoutput_commit_prepared_txn,
pgoutput_rollback_prepared_txn,
pgoutput_stream_commit,
pgoutput_stream_prepare_txn

Will the patch be proposed retroactively to version 13-12-11-10.

Best regards,

Fabrice

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:59 AM wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:37 AM I wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 7:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now, one idea to solve this problem could be that whenever we skip
> > sending any change we do try to update the plugin progress via
> > OutputPluginUpdateProgress(for walsender, it will invoke
> > WalSndUpdateProgress), and there it tries to process replies and send
> > keep_alive if necessary as we do when we send some data via
> > OutputPluginWrite(for walsender, it will invoke WalSndWriteData). I
> > don't know whether it is a good idea to invoke such a mechanism for
> > every change we skip to send or we should do it after we skip sending
> > some threshold of continuous changes. I think later would be
> > preferred. Also, we might want to introduce a new parameter
> > send_keep_alive to this API so that there is flexibility to invoke
> > this mechanism as we don't need to invoke it while we are actually
> > sending data and before that, we just update the progress via this
> > API.
> ......
> Based on above, I think the second idea that sending some threshold of
> continuous changes might be better, I will do some research about this
> approach.
Based on the second idea, I wrote a new patch(see attachment).

Regards,
Wang wei

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: is the base backup protocol used by out-of-core tools?
Next
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson