Ouch! I replied to wrong mail. At Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:55:04 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20170413.195504.89348773.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > I confused sync and apply workers. > sync worker failure at start causes immediate retries. > > At Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote in <cad21aocr6ehgk0vahshjo4bre_vdkjhubl9euwhaugrpspp...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 4/12/17 00:48, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > >>> Perhaps instead of a global last_start_time, we store a per relation > > >>> last_start_time in SubscriptionRelState? > > >> > > >> I was thinking the same. But a problem is that the list of > > >> SubscriptionRelState is refreshed whenever the syncing table state > > >> becomes invalid (table_state_valid = false). I guess we need to > > >> improve these logic including GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations(). > > > > > > The table states are invalidated on a syscache callback from > > > pg_subscription_rel, which happens roughly speaking when a table > > > finishes the initial sync. So if we're worried about failing tablesync > > > workers relaunching to quickly, this would only be a problem if a > > > tablesync of another table finishes right in that restart window. That > > > doesn't seem a terrible issue to me. > > > > > > > I think the table states are invalidated whenever the table sync > > worker starts, because the table sync worker updates its status of > > pg_subscription_rel and commits it before starting actual copy. So we > > cannot rely on that. I thought we can store last_start_time into > > pg_subscription_rel but it might be overkill. I'm now thinking to > > change GetSubscriptionNotReadyRealtions so that last_start_time in > > SubscriptionRelState is taken over to new list.
The right target of "This" below is found at the following URL. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBt_XUdppddFak661_LBM2t3CfK52aLKHG%2Bekd7SkzLmg%40mail.gmail.com > This resolves the problem but, if I understand correctly, the > many pallocs in process_syncing_tables_for_apply() is working on > ApplyContext and the context is reset before the next visit here > (in LogicalRepApplyLoop). > > Although this is not a problem of this patch, this is a problem > generally. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers