Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com" <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "euler(at)eulerto(dot)com" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, "m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br" <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Date: 2023-01-19 13:23:37
Message-ID: CALDaNm3O3qWff3sRoN5Znf802CqPL6OCPSTSQr2ZGLUQ0vDV9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:25 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 12:06, Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
> > <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Updated the comment and the function call.
> > >
> > > Kindly have a look at the updated patch v17.
> >
> > Thanks for the updated patch, few comments:
> > 1) min_apply_delay was accepting values like '600 m s h', I was not
> > sure if we should allow this:
> > alter subscription sub1 set (min_apply_delay = ' 600 m s h');
> >
>
> I think here we should have specs similar to recovery_min_apply_delay.
>
> >
> > 2) How about adding current_txn_wait_time in
> > pg_stat_subscription_stats, we can update the current_txn_wait_time
> > periodically, this will help the user to check approximately how much
> > time is left(min_apply_delay - stat value) before this transaction
> > will be applied in the subscription. If you agree this can be 0002
> > patch.
> >
>
> Do we have any similar stats for recovery_min_apply_delay? If not, I
> suggest let's postpone this to see if users really need such a
> parameter.

I did not find any statistics for recovery_min_apply_delay, ok it can
be delayed to a later time.

Regards,
Vignesh

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arthur Nascimento 2023-01-19 13:42:47 Re: vac_update_datfrozenxid will raise "wrong tuple length" if pg_database tuple contains toast attribute.
Previous Message tushar 2023-01-19 13:20:33 Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet