On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:48:50AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > Yeah I think that makes sense, done that way in the attached. > > Speaking about physical walsender, I moved the test to 001_stream_rep.pl > instead > (would also fail without the fix).
Hmm. I was doing some more checks with this patch, and on closer look I am wondering if the location you have chosen for the stats reports is too aggressive: this requires a LWLock for the WAL sender backend type taken in exclusive mode, with each step of WalSndLoop() taken roughly each time a record or a batch of records is sent. A single installcheck with a primary/standby setup can lead to up to 50k stats report calls. With smaller records, the loop can become hotter, can't it? Also, there can be a high number of WAL senders on a single node, and I've heard of some customers with complex logical decoding deployments with dozens of logical WAL senders. Isn't there a risk of having this code path become a point of contention? It seems to me that we should benchmark this change more carefully, perhaps even reduce the frequency of the report calls. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
