RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:34 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 7:45 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> >
> > Personally I'm fine even without "LEADER" in the wait event name since
> > we don't have "who is waiting" in it. IIUC a row of pg_stat_activity
> > shows who, and the wait event name shows "what the process is
> > waiting". So I prefer (a).
> >
>
> This logic makes sense to me. So, let's go with (a).

OK, here is patch that change the event name to WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA.

Best Regard,
Hou zj