Re: Logical replication timeout problem

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:13 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > + */
> > + ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB update_progress;
> >
> > Are you suggesting changing the name of the above variable? If so, how
> > about apply_progress, progress, or updateprogress? If you don't like
> > any of these then feel free to suggest something else. If we change
> > the variable name then accordingly, we need to update
> > ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB as well.
> >
>
> I would liked to have all the callback names renamed with prefix
> "rbcb_xxx" so that they have very less chances of conflicting with
> similar names in the code base. But it's probably late to do that :).
>
> How are update_txn_progress since the CB is supposed to be used only
> within a transaction? or update_progress_txn?
>

Personally, I would prefer 'apply_progress' as it would be similar to
a few other callbacks like apply_change, apply_truncate, or as is
proposed by patch update_progress again because it is similar to
existing callbacks like commit_prepared. If you and others don't like
any of those then we can go for 'update_progress_txn' as well. Anybody
else has an opinion on this?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.