| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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: | 2023-02-06 10:33:36 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB5866CEF7E3050B0A75AF1FC2F5DA9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Hou,
> 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.
In LogicalParallelApplyLoop(), we introduced the new wait event
WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_MAIN whereas it is practically waits a shared
message queue and it seems to be same as WAIT_EVENT_MQ_RECEIVE.
Do you have a policy to reuse the event instead of adding a new event?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-02-06 10:47:13 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 (typo) |
| Previous Message | Regina Obe | 2023-02-06 10:19:39 | RE: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension scripts |