| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Date: | 2022-10-13 03:49:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+OBVyu5Vy3dCH_ofF7qBprdB9iq-71Pa1kynii_Ly0UQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:09 PM kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> ~~~
> 10. worker.c - apply_handle_stream_start
>
> ```
> + *
> + * XXX We can avoid sending pair of the START/STOP messages to the parallel
> + * worker because unlike apply worker it will process only one
> + * transaction-at-a-time. However, it is not clear whether that is worth the
> + * effort because it is sent after logical_decoding_work_mem changes.
> ```
>
> I can understand that START message is not needed, but is STOP really removable? If leader does not send STOP to its child, does it lose a chance to change the worker-state to IDLE_IN_TRANSACTION?
>
I think if we want we can set that state before we went to sleep in
parallel apply worker. So, I guess ideally we don't need both of these
messages but for now, it is fine as mentioned in the comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-13 03:49:44 | Re: how to correctly react on exception in pfree function? |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2022-10-13 03:47:02 | Re: Use LIMIT instead of Unique for DISTINCT when all distinct pathkeys are redundant |