At Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:12:54 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > The wait event WalReceiverWaitStart has been categorized in the type > Client. > But why? Walreceiver is waiting for startup process to set the lsn and > timeline while it is reporting WalReceiverWaitStart. So its type > should be IPC, > instead? > > The wait event WalSenderWaitForWAL has also been categorized in the > type > Client. While this wait event is being reported, logical replication > walsender > is waiting for not only new WAL to be flushed but also the socket to > be > readable and writeable (if there is pending data). I guess that this > is why > its type is Client. But ISTM walsender is *mainly* waiting for new WAL > to be > flushed by other processes during that period, so I think that it's > better > to use IPC as the type of the wait event WalSenderWaitForWAL. Thought?
I agree that it's definitely not a client wait. It would be either activity or IPC. My reasoning for the latter is it's similar to WAIT_EVENT_WAL_RECEIVER_MAIN since both are a wait while WalReceiverMain to continue. With a difference thatin walreceiver hears where to start in the latter state. I don't object if it were categorized to IPC, though. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
