On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:21 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:34 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:54 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml > > > > > > 5. pg_stat_subscription > > > > > > @@ -3198,11 +3198,22 @@ SELECT pid, wait_event_type, wait_event FROM > > > pg_stat_activity WHERE wait_event i > > > > > > <row> > > > <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > > > + <structfield>apply_leader_pid</structfield> <type>integer</type> > > > + </para> > > > + <para> > > > + Process ID of the leader apply worker, if this process is a apply > > > + parallel worker. NULL if this process is a leader apply worker or > > > a > > > + synchronization worker. > > > + </para></entry> > > > + </row> > > > + > > > + <row> > > > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > > > <structfield>relid</structfield> <type>oid</type> > > > </para> > > > <para> > > > OID of the relation that the worker is synchronizing; null for the > > > - main apply worker > > > + main apply worker and the parallel apply worker > > > </para></entry> > > > </row> > > > > > > 5a. > > > > > > (Same as general comment #1 about terminology) > > > > > > "apply_leader_pid" --> "leader_apply_pid" > > > > > > > How about naming this as just leader_pid? I think it could be helpful > > in the future if we decide to parallelize initial sync (aka parallel > > copy) because then we could use this for the leader PID of parallel > > sync workers as well. > > > > -- > > I still prefer leader_apply_pid. > leader_pid does not tell which 'operation' it belongs to. 'apply' > gives the clarity that it is apply related process. >
But then do you suggest that tomorrow if we allow parallel sync workers then we have a separate column leader_sync_pid? I think that doesn't sound like a good idea and moreover one can refer to docs for clarification. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.