From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
Date: | 2021-01-25 02:58:22 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JmP2VVpH2=O=5BBbuH7gyQtWn40aXp_Jyjn1+Kggfq8A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:24 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Few comments:
> > =============
> > 1.
> > - * So the state progression is always: INIT -> DATASYNC -> SYNCWAIT ->
> > - * CATCHUP -> SYNCDONE -> READY.
> > + * So the state progression is always: INIT -> DATASYNC ->
> > + * (sync worker FINISHEDCOPY) -> SYNCWAIT -> CATCHUP -> SYNCDONE -> READY.
> >
> > I don't think we need to be specific here that sync worker sets
> > FINISHEDCOPY state.
> >
>
> This was meant to indicate that *only* the sync worker knows about the
> FINISHEDCOPY state, whereas all the other states are either known
> (assigned and/or used) by *both* kinds of workers. But, I can remove
> it if you feel that distinction is not useful.
>
Okay, but I feel you can mention that in the description you have
added for FINISHEDCOPY state. It looks a bit odd here and the message
you want to convey is also not that clear.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tang, Haiying | 2021-01-25 03:10:30 | RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-01-25 02:56:15 | Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |