From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Date: | 2023-02-14 06:58:09 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PtzePO8HfEJt7PwUZoGtDCjUaQ1k_61mwqZkbdXVJMkcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:32 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:43 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > > > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > while reading the code, I noticed that in pa_send_data() we set wait
> > > > > event to WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE while
> > > > sending
> > > > > the message to the queue. Because this state is used in multiple
> > > > > places, user might not be able to distinguish what they are waiting
> > > > > for. So It seems we'd better to use WAIT_EVENT_MQ_SEND here which will
> > > > > be eaier to distinguish and understand. Here is a tiny patch for that.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > As discussed[1], we'd better invent a new state for this purpose, so here is the patch
> > > that does the same.
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LTud4FLRbS0QqdZ-pjSxwfFLHC1Dx%3D6Q7nyROCvvPSfw%40mail.gmail.com
> > >
> >
> > My first impression was the
> > WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_SEND_DATA name seemed misleading
> > because that makes it sound like the parallel apply worker is doing
> > the sending, but IIUC it's really the opposite.
> >
>
> So, how about WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA?
>
Yes, IIUC all the LR events are named WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_xxx.
So names like the below seem correct format:
a) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA
b) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_SEND_DATA
c) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_APPLY_SEND_DATA
Of those, I prefer option c) because saying LEADER_APPLY_xxx matches
the name format of the existing
WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-14 07:04:16 | Re: Force testing of query jumbling code in TAP tests |
Previous Message | Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) | 2023-02-14 06:22:12 | RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |