On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:11 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 6:27 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I think we have last_send time in send_feedback(), so we can expose it > if we want but how would that solve the problem you are worried about? >
I have an idea to use last_send time to avoid walsenders being timeout. Instead of directly using wal_receiver_status_interval as a minimum interval to send the feedback, we should check if it is greater than last_send time then we should send the feedback after (wal_receiver_status_interval - last_send). I think they can probably be different only on the very first time. Any better ideas? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
