RE: Logical replication timeout problem

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 19:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:13 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > + */
> > > + ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB update_progress;
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting changing the name of the above variable? If so, how
> > > about apply_progress, progress, or updateprogress? If you don't like
> > > any of these then feel free to suggest something else. If we change
> > > the variable name then accordingly, we need to update
> > > ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB as well.
> > >
> >
> > I would liked to have all the callback names renamed with prefix
> > "rbcb_xxx" so that they have very less chances of conflicting with
> > similar names in the code base. But it's probably late to do that :).
> >
> > How are update_txn_progress since the CB is supposed to be used only
> > within a transaction? or update_progress_txn?
> >
>
> Personally, I would prefer 'apply_progress' as it would be similar to
> a few other callbacks like apply_change, apply_truncate, or as is
> proposed by patch update_progress again because it is similar to
> existing callbacks like commit_prepared. If you and others don't like
> any of those then we can go for 'update_progress_txn' as well. Anybody
> else has an opinion on this?

I think 'update_progress_txn' might be better. Because I think this name seems
to make it easier to know that this callback is used to update process when
processing txn. So, I rename it to 'update_progress_txn'.

I have addressed all the comments and here is the new version patch.

Regards,
Wang Wei