On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:36 AM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 11:37 AM Shi, Yu/侍 雨 <shiy.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 3:41 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com > > <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Yes, I think you are right. > Fixed this problem. >
+ /* + * Trying to send keepalive message after every change has some + * overhead, but testing showed there is no noticeable overhead if + * we do it after every ~100 changes. + */ +#define CHANGES_THRESHOLD 100 + + if (++changes_count < CHANGES_THRESHOLD) + return; ... + changes_count = 0; I think it is better to have this threshold-related code in that caller as we have in the previous version. Also, let's modify the comment as follows:" It is possible that the data is not sent to downstream for a long time either because the output plugin filtered it or there is a DDL that generates a lot of data that is not processed by the plugin. So, in such cases, the downstream can timeout. To avoid that we try to send a keepalive message if required. Trying to send a keepalive message after every change has some overhead, but testing showed there is no noticeable overhead if we do it after every ~100 changes." -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
