Re: Logical replication timeout problem

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:21 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 1.
>
> It makes no real difference, but I was wondering about:
> "update txn progress" versus "update progress txn"
>

Yeah, I think we can go either way but I still prefer "update progress
txn" as that is more closer to LogicalOutputPluginWriterUpdateProgress
callback name.

>
> 5.
>
> + if (++changes_count >= CHANGES_THRESHOLD)
> + {
> + rb->update_progress_txn(rb, txn, change);
> + changes_count = 0;
> + }
>
> When there is no update_progress function this code is still incurring
> some small additional overhead for incrementing and testing the
> THRESHOLD every time, and also needlessly calling to the wrapper every
> 100x. This overhead could be avoided with a simpler up-front check
> like shown below. OTOH, maybe the overhead is insignificant enough
> that just leaving the curent code is neater?
>

As far as built-in logical replication is concerned, it will be
defined and I don't know if the overhead will be significant enough in
this case. Also, one can say that for the cases it is defined, we are
adding this check multiple times (it is already checked inside
OutputPluginUpdateProgress). So, I would prefer a neat code here.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.