At Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:07:08 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 1:26 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > If the comment describes the objective correctly, the only possible > > impact would be that there may be a case where server responds a bit > > slowly for a shutdown request. But I'm not sure it is definitely > > true. > > > > So, we should try to find how wal sender shutdown is dependent on > sending keep alive and second thing is what about sync rep case? I > think in the worst case that also might delay. Why do you think that > would be acceptable?
Mmm. AFAICS including the history of the code, the problem to fix looks like to be pthat logical wal receiver doesn't send a flush response spontaneously. As far as receiver doesn't do that and unless we allow some delay of the response, sender inevitably needs to ping frequently until the wanted respons returns. It seems to me that it is better to make the receiver send a response at flush LSN movement spontaneously rather than tweaking the keepalive sending mechanism. But letting XLogFlush trigger lsn_mapping processing does not seem simple.. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
