Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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