| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |
| Date: | 2026-01-12 05:11:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5v3UHyJ_vgxcBmCEO1U5PFsrYZ3EXGPF0Fo37twOLpdSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit and Andres,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 10:29 AM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delayed response. PFA the patch implementing the idea
> discussed above. It relies on the output plugin callback to return
> correct boolean but maintains the statistics in the core itself.
>
> I have reviewed all the previous comments and applied the ones which
> are relevant to the new approach again. Following two are worth noting
> here.
>
> In order to address Amit's concern [1] that an inaccuracy in these
> counts because of a bug in output plugin code may be blamed on the
> core, I have added a note in the documentation of view
> pg_stat_replication_slot in order to avoid such a blame and also
> directing users to plugin they should investigate.
>
> With the statistics being maintained by the core, Bertrand's concern
> about stale statistics [2] are also addressed. Also it does not have
> the asymmetry mentioned in point 2 in [3].
>
> Please review.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KzYaq9dcaa20Pv44ewomUPj_PbbeLfEnvzuXYMZtNw0A%40mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aNZ1T5vYC1BtKs4M@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
> [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAExHW5tfVHABuv1moL_shp7oPrWmg8ha7T8CqwZxiMrKror7iw%40mail.gmail.com
Andres, Can you please review the new implementation and let me know
whether it addresses the concern you raised in [4]
Amit, does it address your concerns in [1] (see above references) reasonably?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2026-01-12 05:26:23 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-01-12 04:04:28 | Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables |