Opps! I misunderstood that. At Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:00:25 +0000, "higuchi.dais...@fujitsu.com" <higuchi.dais...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > Fujii-san, thank you for comments. > > >The cause of this problem is that the checkpointer's sleep time is calculated > >from both checkpoint_timeout and archive_timeout during normal running, > >but calculated only from checkpoint_timeout during recovery. So Daisuke-san's > >patch tries to change that so that it's calculated from both of them even > >during recovery. No? > > Yes, it's exactly so. > > >last_xlog_switch_time is not updated during recovery. So "elapsed_secs" can > >be > >large and cur_timeout can be negative. Isn't this problematic? > > Yes... My patch was missing this.
The patch also makes WaitLatch called with zero timeout, which causes assertion failure. > How about using the original archive_timeout value for calculating > cur_timeout during recovery? > > if (XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 && !RecoveryInProgress()) > { > elapsed_secs = now - last_xlog_switch_time; > if (elapsed_secs >= XLogArchiveTimeout) > continue; /* no sleep for us > ... */ > cur_timeout = Min(cur_timeout, XLogArchiveTimeout - > elapsed_secs); > } > + else if (XLogArchiveTimeout > 0) > + cur_timeout = Min(cur_timeout, XLogArchiveTimeout); > > During recovery, accurate cur_timeout is not calculated because elapsed_secs > is not used. > However, after recovery is complete, WAL archiving will start by the next > archive_timeout is reached. > I felt it is enough to solve this problem. That causes unwanted change of cur_timeout during recovery. > >As another approach, what about waking the checkpointer up at the end of > >recovery like we already do for walsenders? We don't want change checkpoint interval during recovery, that means we cannot cnosider archive_timeout at the fist checkpointer after recovery ends. So I think that the suggestion from Fujii-san is the direction. > If the above solution is not good, I will consider this approach. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center