Sorry, I misunderstood that. > > At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> > > wrote in > > <cahgqgwgudgcmnhzinkd37i+jijdkruecrea1ncrs1mmte3r...@mail.gmail.com> > >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > >> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> > I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0 > >> > and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master. > >> > > >> > 9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay caused by slow xlog > >> > receiving on pg_basebackup mentioned in the previous mail. But > >> > the current master still has this problem. > >> > >> Seems walreceiver has the same problem. No? > > > > pg_receivexlog.c would have the same problem since it uses the > > same function with pg_basebackup.c. > > > > The correspondent of HandleCopyStream in wansender is > > WalReceiverMain, and it doesn't seem to have the same kind of > > loop shown below. It seems to surely send feedback per one > > record. > > > > | r = stream_reader(); > > | while (r > 0) > > | { > > | ... wal record processing stuff without sending feedback.. > > | r = stream_reader(); > > | } > > WalReceiverMain() has the similar code as follows. > > len = walrcv_receive(NAPTIME_PER_CYCLE, &buf); > if (len != 0) > { > for (;;) > { > if (len > 0) > { > .... > len = walrcv_receive(0, &buf); > } > }
The loop seems a bit different but eventually the same about this discussion. 408> len = walrcv_receive(NAPTIME_PER_CYCLE, &buf); 409> if (len != 0) 410> { 415> for (;;) 416> { 417> if (len > 0) 418> { 425> XLogWalRcvProcessMsg(buf[0], &buf[1], len - 1); 426> } 427-438> else {break;} 439> len = walrcv_receive(0, &buf); 440> } 441> } XLogWalRcvProcessMsg doesn't send feedback when processing 'w'=WAL record packet. So the same thing as pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog will occur on walsender. Exiting the for(;;) loop by TimestampDifferenceExceeds just before line 439 is an equivalent measure to I poposed for receivelog.c, but calling XLogWalRcvSendHSFeedback(false) there is seemingly simpler (but I feel a bit uncomfortable for the latter) Or other measures? regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers