At Thu, 9 Feb 2023 13:48:52 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:45 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > At Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:03:03 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" > > <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > > > Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version. > > > > + if (statusinterval_ms > 0 && diffms > statusinterval_ms) > > > > The next expected feedback time is measured from the last status > > report. Thus, it seems to me this may suppress feedbacks from being > > sent for an unexpectedly long time especially when min_apply_delay is > > shorter than wal_r_s_interval. > > > > I think the minimum time before we send any feedback during the wait > is wal_r_s_interval. Now, I think if there is no transaction for a > long time before we get a new transaction, there should be keep-alive > messages in between which would allow us to send feedback at regular > intervals (wal_receiver_status_interval). So, I think we should be
Right. > able to send feedback in less than 2 * wal_receiver_status_interval > unless wal_sender/receiver timeout is very large and there is a very > low volume of transactions. Now, we can try to send the feedback We have suffered this kind of feedback silence many times. Thus I don't want to rely on luck here. I had in mind of exposing last_send itself or providing interval-calclation function to the logic. > before we start waiting or maybe after every > wal_receiver_status_interval / 2 but I think that will lead to more > spurious feedback messages than we get the benefit from them. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
