On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 5:13 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:49 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Shorter nap times mean higher possibility of wasted CPU cycles - that > > should be avoided. Doing that for a test's sake seems wrong. Is there > > a way that the naptime can controlled by external factors such as > > likelihood of an advanced slot (just firing bullets in the dark) or is > > the naptime controllable by user interface like GUC? The test can use > > those interfaces. > > > > Yes, we can control naptime based on the fact whether any slots are > being advanced on primary. This is how a slotsync worker does. It > keeps on doubling the naptime if there is no activity on primary > starting from 200ms till max of 30 sec. As soon as activity happens, > naptime is reduced to 200ms again. >
Is there a reason why we don't want to use the same naptime strategy for API and worker? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
