On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 4/13/17 06:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Attached the latest patch. It didn't actually necessary to change >> GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations. I just changed the logic refreshing >> the sync table state list. > > I think this was the right direction, but then I got worried about > having a loop within a loop to copy over the last start times. If you > have very many tables, that could be a big nested loop. > > Here is an alternative proposal to store the last start times in a hash > table. >
If we use wal_retrieve_retry_interval for the table sync worker, I think we need to update the documentation as well. Currently the documentation mentions that a bit, but since wal_retrieve_retry_interval will be used at three different places for different reason it would confuse the user. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
