On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 1:26 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:21:25 +1000, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> > wrote in > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Also, more to the point this special keep_alive seems to be sent for > > > synchronous replication and walsender shutdown as they can expect > > > updated locations. You haven't given any reason (theory) why those two > > > won't be impacted due to this change? I am aware that for synchronous > > > replication, we wake waiters while ProcessStandbyReplyMessage but I am > > > not sure how it helps with wal sender shutdown? I think we need to > > > know the reasons for this message and then need to see if the change > > > has any impact on the same. > > > > > > > Yes, I'm not sure about the possible impacts, still looking at it. > > If the comment describes the objective correctly, the only possible > impact would be that there may be a case where server responds a bit > slowly for a shutdown request. But I'm not sure it is definitely > true. >
So, we should try to find how wal sender shutdown is dependent on sending keep alive and second thing is what about sync rep case? I think in the worst case that also might delay. Why do you think that would be acceptable? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
