RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

Thanks for the reply.

> Thanks for reporting. I think for LogicalParallelApplyStateChange we'd better document it in a consistent style with LogicalSyncStateChange,
> so I have slightly adjusted the patch for the same.

I think the description in the patch you attached is better.

Regards,
Noriyoshi Shinoda

-----Original Message-----
From: houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 7:15 PM
To: Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP) <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>; Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>; wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com; Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>; shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com; PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

On Monday, January 9, 2023 5:32 PM Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP) <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Thanks for the great new feature.
>
> Applied patches include adding wait events LogicalParallelApplyMain,
> LogicalParallelApplyStateChange.
> However, it seems that monitoring.sgml only contains descriptions for
> pg_locks. The attached patch adds relevant wait event information.
> Please update if you have a better description.

Thanks for reporting. I think for LogicalParallelApplyStateChange we'd better document it in a consistent style with LogicalSyncStateChange, so I have slightly adjusted the patch for the same.

Best regards,
Hou zj