On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:02 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > I have analyzed how we handle this. Please see attached the patch (0003) > > > which > > > allows reusing connection. > > > > > > > Why did you change the application name during the connection? > > It was because the lifetime of tablesync worker is longer than slots's one and > tablesync worker creates temporary replication slots many times, per the > target > relation. The name of each slots has relid, so I thought that it was not > suitable. >
Okay, but let's try to give a unique application name to each tablesync worker for the purpose of pg_stat_activity and synchronous replication (as mentioned in existing comments as well). One idea is to generate a name like pg_<sub_id>_sync_<worker_slot> but feel free to suggest if you have any better ideas. > But in the later patch the tablesync worker tries to reuse the slot during the > synchronization, so in this case the application_name should be same as > slotname. > Fair enough. I am slightly afraid that if we can't show the benefits with later patches then we may need to drop them but at this stage I feel we need to investigate why those are not helping? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
