Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
Subject Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes
Date
Msg-id CAHg+QDcAuKTbNaNph+km2=6+KueG98iQQL3WibbnxqZ65uCmYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 3:13 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 3:27 AM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> wrote:


XLogInsert in my opinion is the best place to call it and the hook can be something like this "void xlog_insert_hook(NULL)" as all the throttling logic required is the current flush position which can be obtained from GetFlushRecPtr and the ReplicationSlotCtl. Attached a draft patch.

IMHO, it is not a good idea to call an external hook function inside a critical section.  Generally, we ensure that we do not call any code path within a critical section which can throw an error and if we start calling the external hook then we lose that control. 

Thank you for the comment. XLogInsertRecord is inside a critical section but not XLogInsert. Am I missing something?
 
It should be blocked at the operation level itself e.g. ALTER TABLE READ ONLY, or by some other hook at a little higher level.
 
There is a lot of maintenance overhead with a custom implementation at individual databases and tables level. This doesn't provide the necessary control that I am looking for.


 

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key joins revisited
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: correct the sizes of values and nulls arrays in pg_control_checkpoint