On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > If we want to avoid continuously syncing newly added slots in later > > cycles and instead focus only on the ones that failed to sync during > > the first attempt, one approach is to maintain a list of failed slots > > from the initial cycle and only retry those in subsequent attempts. > > But this will add complexity to the implementation. > > > > There will be some additional code for this but overall it improves > the code in the lower level functions. We may want to use the existing > remote_slot list for this purpose. > > The current proposed change in low-level functions appears to be > difficult to maintain, especially the change proposed in > update_and_persist_local_synced_slot(). If we can find a better way to > achieve the same then we can consider the current approach as well.
Right. I've reworked the design to have the wait at a much lower level. I've also used a single WAIT EVENT - REPLICATION_SLOTSYNC_PRIMARY_CATCHUP for both the slotsync worker and the sync API. regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia
v5-0001-Improve-initial-slot-synchronization-in-pg_sync_r.patch
Description: Binary data
