Hi, On 2023-04-04 17:33:25 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 14:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > That's presumably OK, in the > > sense that they'll go back to sleep and eventually wake up again, but > > it means they might end up chronically behind sending out WAL to > > cascading standbys. > > Without 0004, cascading logical walsenders would have worse wakeup > behavior than logical walsenders on the primary. Assuming the fix is > small in scope and otherwise acceptable, I think it belongs as a part > of this overall series.
FWIW, personally, I wouldn't feel ok with committing 0003 without 0004. And IMO they ought to be committed the other way round. The stalls you *can* get, depending on the speed of WAL apply and OS scheduling, can be long. This is actually why a predecessor version of the feature had a bunch of sleeps and retries in the tests, just to avoid those stalls. Obviously that's not a good path... Greetings, Andres Freund
