| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | SAMEER KUMAR <sameer(dot)kasi200x(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding clarification to description of IPC wait events XactGroupUpdate and ProcArrayGroupUpdate |
| Date: | 2024-08-20 08:42:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KxC0-kY5U-9VuJAXLrn75kmEigP_Jaw2+TiWJfZoxnMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 8:11 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:25:25AM +0800, SAMEER KUMAR wrote:
> > I think it is important to indicate that the group leader is responsible
> > for clearing the transaction ID/transaction status of other backends
> > (including this one).
>
> Your proposal is
>
> Waiting for the group leader process to clear the transaction ID of
> this backend at the end of a transaction.
>
> Waiting for the group leader process to update the transaction status
> for this backend.
>
> Mine is
>
> Waiting for the group leader to clear the transaction ID at transaction
> end.
>
> Waiting for the group leader to update transaction status at
> transaction end.
>
> IMHO the latter doesn't convey substantially less information, and it fits
> a little better with the terse style of the other wait events nearby.
>
+1 for Nathan's version. It is quite close to the previous version,
for which we haven't heard any complaints since they were introduced.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | 陈宗志 | 2024-08-20 08:46:37 | Some questions about PostgreSQL’s design. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-08-20 08:41:48 | Re: define PG_REPLSLOT_DIR |