On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 6:38 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>
> Your solution with an additional latch seems better because it makes
> WaitForReplicationWorkerAttach() react more quickly, without the 10 s
> wait. I'm surprised we have that in the first place, 10 s seems like a
> pretty long time to wait for a parallel apply worker to start. Why was
> that ever OK?
>
Isn't the call wait for 10 milliseconds? The comment atop
WaitLatch("The "timeout" is given in milliseconds...) indicates the
timeout is in milliseconds.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
