RE: Logical replication timeout problem

Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>

From: "wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-02-08T02:59:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 28, 2022 at 19:36 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com> wrote:
> shouldn't we use receiver_timeout in place of wal_sender_timeout because de
> problem comes from the consummer.
Thanks for your review.

IMO, because it is a bug fix on the publisher-side, and the keepalive message
is sent based on wal_sender_timeout in the existing code. So keep it consistent
with the existing code.

Regards,
Wang wei

Commits

  1. Fix the logical replication timeout during large DDLs.

  2. Fix the logical replication timeout during large transactions.

  3. Rethink the delay-checkpoint-end mechanism in the back-branches.

  4. Revert "Logical decoding of sequences"

  5. Skip empty transactions for logical replication.

  6. Allow specifying column lists for logical replication

  7. Add decoding of sequences to built-in replication

  8. Fix ABI break introduced by commit 4daa140a2f.

  9. Lag tracking for logical replication