Hi, On 2023-01-26 13:33:27 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > 6. Backends can ignore throttling for WAL records marked as unimportant, no?
Why would that be a good idea? Not that it matters today, but those records still need to be flushed in case of a commit by another transaction. > 7. I think we need to not let backends throttle too frequently even > though they have crossed wal_throttle_threshold bytes. The best way is > to rely on replication lag, after all the goal of this feature is to > keep replication lag under check - say, throttle only when > wal_distance > wal_throttle_threshold && replication_lag > > wal_throttle_replication_lag_threshold. I think my idea of only forcing to flush/wait an LSN some distance in the past would automatically achieve that? Greetings, Andres Freund