If you would like I can test the patch you send to me. Regards
Fabrice On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:02 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:12 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > IIUC, these are called after processing each WAL record so not > > sure how is it possible in your case that these are not reached? > > > > I don't know, as you say, to highlight the problem we would have to > debug the WalSndKeepaliveIfNecessary function > > > > > I was curious to know if the walsender has exited before walreceiver > > > > During the last tests we made we didn't observe any timeout of the wal > sender process. > > > > > Do you mean you are planning to change from 1 minute to 5 minutes? > > > > We set wal_sender_timeout/wal_receiver_timeout to 5' and launch new > test. The result is surprising and rather positive there is no timeout any > more in the log and the 20Gb of snap files are removed in less than 5 > minutes. > > How to explain that behaviour, why the snap files are consumed suddenly > so quickly. > > > > I think it is because we decide that the data in those snap files > doesn't need to be sent at xact end, so we remove them. > > > I choose the value arbitrarily for > wal_sender_timeout/wal_receiver_timeout parameters, are theses values > appropriate from your point of view? > > > > It is difficult to say what is the appropriate value for these > parameters unless in some way we debug WalSndKeepaliveIfNecessary() to > find why it didn't send keep alive when it is expected. Would you be > able to make code changes and test or if you want I can make changes > and send the patch if you can test it? If not, is it possible that in > some way you send a reproducible test? > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. >
