On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in > <20170406.170214.263553093.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote in <cad21aocrcwi3swkkow_efww0finxyyclgsbw09n5uy2sxne...@mail.gmail.com> >> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> > > I was thinking the same. >> > > >> > > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:33:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada >> > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in >> > > <CAD21AoDCnyRJDUY=esvve68aukvop2dfomtebfpad1tifbj...@mail.gmail.com> >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> While testing table sync worker for logical replication I noticed that >> > >> if the table sync worker of logical replication failed to insert the >> > >> data for whatever reason, the table sync worker process exits with >> > >> error. And then the main apply worker launches the table sync worker >> > >> again soon without interval. This routine is executed at very high >> > >> frequency without interval. >> > >> >> > >> Should we do put a interval (wal_retrieve_interval or make a new GUC >> > >> parameter?) for launching the table sync worker? > > Hmm. I was playing with something wrong. Now I see the invervals > 5 seconds. No problem.
Yeah, this issue happens only in the table sync worker. > >> > > After introducing encoding conversion, untranslatable characters >> > > in a published table causes this situation. >> > >> > I think it's better to make a new GUC parameter for the table sync >> > worker. Having multiple behaviors in wal_retrieve_retry_interval is >> > not good idea. Thought? > > So, this is working, sorry. > >> I prefer subscription option than GUC. Something like following. >> >> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION s1 CONNECTION 'blah' >> PUBLICATION p1 WITH (noreconnect = true); >> >> Stored in pg_subscription? >> >> > > Interval can reduce >> > > the frequence of reconnecting, but I think that walreciever >> > > should refrain from reconnecting on unrecoverable(or repeating) >> > > error in walsender. >> > > >> > >> > Yeah, that's also considerable issue. >> >> But not to do now. > I've added this as an open item, and sent a patch for this. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
