From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |
Date: | 2025-09-23 06:44:31 |
Message-ID: | aNJBzxebbWLabunq@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 08:11:23PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 11:48 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> 0001 is the previous patch
> 0002 changes addressing your and Bertrand's comments.
Thanks for the new patch version!
I did not look closely to the code yet but did some testing and I've one remark
regarding plugin_filtered_bytes: It looks ok when a publication is doing rows
filtering but when I:
- create a table and use pg_logical_slot_get_changes with ('skip-empty-xacts', '0')
then I see plugin_sent_bytes increasing (which makes sense).
- create a table and use pg_logical_slot_get_changes with ('skip-empty-xacts', '1')
then I don't see plugin_sent_bytes increasing (which makes sense) but I also don't
see plugin_filtered_bytes increasing. I think that would make sense to also increase
plugin_filtered_bytes in this case (and for the other options that would skip
sending data). Thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-09-23 06:49:54 | Re: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-09-23 06:41:56 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |