On Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:14 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:27 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:57 PM Fujii Masao
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com>
wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:15 PM Fujii Masao
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM, <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
>>>>>> I would like to implement such feature for walreceiver, but there is
one
>>>>>> confusion that whether to use
>>>>>> same configuration parameter(replication_timeout) for walrecevier as
for
>>>>>> master or introduce a new
>>>>>> configuration parameter (receiver_replication_timeout).
>>
>>>>>I like the latter. I believe some users want to set the different
>>>>>timeout values,
>>>>>for example, in the case where the master and standby servers are
placed in
>>>>>the same room, but cascaded standby is placed in other continent.
>>
>>>> Thank you for your suggestion. I have implemented as per your
suggestion to have separate timeout parameter for walreceiver.
>>>> The main changes are:
>>>> 1. Introduce a new configuration parameter
wal_receiver_replication_timeout for walreceiver.
>>>> 2. In function WalReceiverMain(), check if there is no communication
till wal_receiver_replication_timeout, exit the walreceiver.
>>>> This is same as walsender functionality.
>>
>>>> As this is a feature, So I am uploading the attached patch in coming
CommitFest.
>>
>>>> Suggestions/Comments?
>
>>> You also need to change walsender so that it periodically sends the
heartbeat
>>> message, like walreceiver does each wal_receiver_status_interval.
Otherwise,
>>> walreceiver will detect the timeout wrongly whenever there is no traffic
in the
>>> master.
>
>> Doesn't current keepalive message from walsender will suffice that need?
> No. Though the keepalive interval should be smaller than the timeout,
> IIRC there is
> no way to specify the keepalive interval now.
To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now:
Approach-1 :
Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
greater than wal_receiver_status_interval.
If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
Approach-2 :
Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then
the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive
message would be send maximum after that time.
The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows:
TimestampTz timeout = 0;
long sleeptime = 10000; /* 10 s */
int wakeEvents;
/* sleeptime should be equal to wal send interval if
it is not zero otherwise default as 10 sec*/
if (wal_send_status_interval > 0)
{
sleeptime = wal_send_status_interval;
}
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE | WL_TIMEOUT;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
wakeEvents |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE;
else if (wal_send_status_interval > 0)
{
WalSndKeepalive(output_message);
/* Try to flush pending output to the client
*/
if (pq_flush_if_writable() != 0)
break;
}
/* Determine time until replication timeout */
if (replication_timeout > 0)
{
timeout =
TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(last_reply_timestamp,
replication_timeout);
if (wal_send_status_interval <= 0)
{
sleeptime = 1 + (replication_timeout
/ 10);
}
}
/* Sleep until something happens or replication
timeout */
WaitLatchOrSocket(&MyWalSnd->latch, wakeEvents,
MyProcPort->sock,
sleeptime);
/*
* Check for replication timeout. Note we ignore
the corner case
* possibility that the client replied just as we
reached the
* timeout ... he's supposed to reply *before* that.
*/
if (replication_timeout > 0 &&
GetCurrentTimestamp() >= timeout)
{
/*
* Since typically expiration of replication
timeout means
* communication problem, we don't send the
error message to
* the standby.
*/
ereport(COMMERROR,
(errmsg("terminating
walsender process due to replication timeout")));
break;
}
}
Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
