From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |
Date: | 2023-01-06 05:00:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L-N9aUpoCXhoBCiEJAGw3cmKxaxn0Fo43ja+qzAGeyhQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:49 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:34:37AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:16 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> In v12, I moved the restart for two_phase mode to the end of
> >> process_syncing_tables_for_apply() so that we don't need to rely on another
> >> iteration of the loop.
> >
> > This should work but it is better to add a comment before calling
> > CommandCounterIncrement() to indicate that this is for making changes
> > to the relation state visible.
>
> Will do.
>
Isn't it better to move this part into a separate patch as this is
useful even without the main patch to improve wakeups?
> > Thinking along similar lines, won't apply worker need to be notified
> > of SUBREL_STATE_SYNCWAIT state change by the tablesync worker?
>
> wait_for_worker_state_change() should notify the apply worker in this case.
>
I think this is yet to be included in the patch, right?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-06 05:14:34 | Re: Notify downstream to discard the streamed transaction which was aborted due to crash. |
Previous Message | jian he | 2023-01-06 04:29:49 | Re: Infinite Interval |