On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:07 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Thanks, pushed.
>
> Returning to the prior patch ... I don't much care for this:
>
> + /* Maybe there will be a free slot in a second... */
> + retry_time = TimestampTzPlusSeconds(now, 1);
> + LogRepWorkerUpdateSyncStartWakeup(retry_time);
>
> We're not moving the goalposts very far on unnecessary wakeups if
> we have to do that. Do we need to get a wakeup on sync slot free?
> Although having to send that to every worker seems ugly. Maybe this
> is being done in the wrong place and we need to find a way to get
> the launcher to handle it.
>
> As for the business about process_syncing_tables being only called
> conditionally, I was already of the opinion that the way it's
> getting called is loony. Why isn't it called from LogicalRepApplyLoop
> (and noplace else)?
Currently, it seems to be called after processing transaction end
commands or when we are not in any transaction. As per my
understanding, that is when we can ensure the sync between tablesync
and apply worker. For example, say when tablesync worker is doing the
initial copy, the apply worker went ahead and processed some
additional xacts (WAL), now the tablesync worker needs to process all
those transactions after initial sync and before it can mark the state
as SYNCDONE. So that can be checked only at transaction boundries.
However, it is not very clear to me why the patch needs the below code.
@@ -3615,7 +3639,33 @@ LogicalRepApplyLoop(XLogRecPtr last_received)
if (!dlist_is_empty(&lsn_mapping))
wait_time = WalWriterDelay;
else
- wait_time = NAPTIME_PER_CYCLE;
+ {
+ TimestampTz nextWakeup = DT_NOEND;
+
+ /*
+ * Since process_syncing_tables() is called conditionally, the
+ * tablesync worker start wakeup time might be in the past, and we
+ * can't know for sure when it will be updated again. Rather than
+ * spinning in a tight loop in this case, bump this wakeup time by
+ * a second.
+ */
+ now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
+ if (wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START] < now)
+ wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START] =
TimestampTzPlusSeconds(wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START], 1);
Do we see unnecessary wakeups without this, or delay in sync?
BTW, do we need to do something about wakeups in
wait_for_relation_state_change()?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
