At Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:05:36 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > At Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:26:05 +0500, Abbas Butt <abbas.b...@enterprisedb.com> > wrote in > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am not sure sending feedback every time before sleep is a good idea, > > > this might lead to unnecessarily sending more messages. Can we try by > > > using one-second interval with -s option to see how it behaves? As a > > > matter of comparison the similar logic in workers.c uses > > > wal_receiver_timeout to send such an update message rather than > > > sending it every time before sleep. > > Logical walreceiver sends a feedback when walrcv_eceive() doesn't > receive a byte. If its' not good that pg_recvlogical does the same > thing, do we need to improve logical walsender's behavior as well?
For the clarity, only the change in the walsender side can stop the flood. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
