On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 2:14 PM Adam C. Emerson <aemerson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 22/03/2022, Matt Benjamin wrote: > > Just to be clear, why do we think it doesn't serve as an optimization? > > My thought being, if we're already saturated with syncing stuff, > adding more work on top of it won't help anything. And what if we're not saturated? You're optimizing the high traffic case by killing the low traffic case. If there are specific implementation issues then address them, but I think this is very valuable to some use cases. Yehuda > > > OTOH, as Yehuda points out, the intended purpose of the async > > notifies was to implement polling avoidance--to provide wake-ups to > > sync endpoints that might otherwise sleep/idle as replication events > > accumulate. This is a well established design pattern, and if we > > remember that the async notifies are duplicating hints, it seems to > > make sense. > > Measuring to see how consequential this is would be legitimate. > > I can imagine a world where if the primary has an idea what the > secondary's polling period is, and there hasn't been much sync > activity and the primary knows the secondary won't poll for a while, > it might be worthwhile to send a single wakeup event when there's new > data available telling it that there's new stuff in the data log. > > Whether this is worthwhile would depend heavily on how frequently the > secondary polls the data log in the first place. > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
