On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 00:35 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:50 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com > > > > <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So I skip tracking lag during a transaction just like the current > > > > > HEAD. > > > > > Attach the new patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, please find the updated patch where I have slightly > > > > modified the comments. > > > > > > > > Sawada-San, Euler, do you have any opinion on this approach? I > > > > personally still prefer the approach implemented in v10 [1] > > > > especially due to the latest finding by Wang-San that we can't > > > > update the lag-tracker apart from when it is invoked at the transaction > > > > end. > > > > However, I am fine if we like this approach more. > > > > > > Thank you for updating the patch. > > > > > > The current patch looks much better than v10 which requires to call > > > to > > > update_progress() every path. > > > > > > Regarding v15 patch, I'm concerned a bit that the new function name, > > > update_progress(), is too generic. How about > > > update_replation_progress() or something more specific name? > > > > > > > Do you intend to say update_replication_progress()? The word > > 'replation' doesn't make sense to me. I am fine with this suggestion. > > Yeah, that was a typo. I meant update_replication_progress(). Thanks for your comments.
> > > Regarding v15 patch, I'm concerned a bit that the new function name,
> > > update_progress(), is too generic. How about
> > > update_replation_progress() or something more specific name?
Improve as suggested. Change the name from update_progress to
update_replication_progress.
> > > ---
> > > + if (end_xact)
> > > + {
> > > + /* Update progress tracking at xact end. */
> > > + OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx, skipped_xact, end_xact);
> > > + changes_count = 0;
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * After continuously processing CHANGES_THRESHOLD changes,
> > > we try to send
> > > + * a keepalive message if required.
> > > + *
> > > + * We don't want to try sending a keepalive message after
> > > processing each
> > > + * change as that can have overhead. Testing reveals that there
> > > is no
> > > + * noticeable overhead in doing it after continuously
> > > processing 100 or so
> > > + * changes.
> > > + */
> > > +#define CHANGES_THRESHOLD 100
> > > + if (++changes_count >= CHANGES_THRESHOLD)
> > > + {
> > > + OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx, skipped_xact, end_xact);
> > > + changes_count = 0;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > Can we merge two if branches since we do the same things? Or did you
> > > separate them for better readability?
Improve as suggested. Merge two if-branches.
Attach the new patch.
1. Rename the new function(update_progress) to update_replication_progress.
[suggestion by Sawada-San]
2. Merge two if-branches in new function update_replication_progress.
[suggestion by Sawada-San.]
3. Improve comments to make them clear. [suggestions by Euler-San.]
Regards,
Wang wei
v16-0001-Fix-the-logical-replication-timeout-during-large.patch
Description: v16-0001-Fix-the-logical-replication-timeout-during-large.patch
