On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:44 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:18 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > Attach the new version patch which addressed all comments. > > > > > > > Some comments on v53-0002* > > ======================== > > 1. I think testing the scenario where the shm_mq buffer is full > > between the leader and parallel apply worker would require a large > > amount of data and then also there is no guarantee. How about having a > > developer GUC [1] force_apply_serialize which allows us to serialize > > the changes and only after commit the parallel apply worker would be > > allowed to apply it? > > +1 > > The code coverage report shows that we don't cover the partial > serialization codes. This GUC would improve the code coverage. >
Shall we keep it as a boolean or an integer? Keeping it as an integer as suggested by Kuroda-San [1] would have an added advantage that we can easily test the cases where serialization would be triggered after sending some changes. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB5866160DE81FA2D88B8F22DEF5159%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
