On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:38 PM Drouvot, Bertrand > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/23 10:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:49 PM Drouvot, Bertrand > > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > Good point, I think we should enhance the WalSndWait() logic to > > > address this case. > > > > Agree. I think it would need to take care of the new CV and probably > > provide a way for the caller to detect it stopped waiting due to the socket > > (I don't think it can find out currently). > > > > > Additionally, I think we should ensure that > > > WalSndWaitForWal() shouldn't wait twice once for wal_flush and a > > > second time for wal to be replayed by physical standby. It should be > > > okay to just wait for Wal to be replayed by physical standby when > > > applicable, otherwise, just wait for Wal to flush as we are doing now. > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Yeah, I think so. What about moving WalSndWaitForStandbyConfirmation() > > outside of WalSndWaitForWal() and call one or the other in > > logical_read_xlog_page()? > > > > I think we need to somehow integrate the logic of both functions. Let > us see what the patch author has to say about this.
Amit, this is attempted in v27. thanks Shveta
