On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:20 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 3:30 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > IMO the current set of > > trade-offs (e.g., unavoidable bloat and WAL buildup) would make this > > feature virtually unusable for a lot of workloads, so it's probably worth > > exploring an alternative approach. > > It might require more engineering effort for alternative approaches > such as one I proposed but the feature could become better from the > user perspective. I also think it would be worth exploring it if we've > not yet. >
Fair enough. I think as of now most people think that we should consider alternative approaches for this feature. The two ideas at a high level are that the apply worker itself first flushes the decoded WAL (maybe only when time-delay is configured) or have a separate walreceiver process as we have for standby. I think we need to analyze the pros and cons of each of those approaches and see if they would be useful even for other things on the apply side. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
