From: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: Rework LogicalOutputPluginWriterUpdateProgress |
Date: | 2023-02-19 13:06:02 |
Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB62752132D42E8F94A72488E69EA79@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thur, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:03 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2023-02-13 14:06:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > The patch calls update_progress in change_cb_wrapper and other
> > > > wrappers which will miss the case of DDLs that generates a lot of data
> > > > that is not processed by the plugin. I think for that we either need
> > > > to call update_progress from reorderbuffer.c similar to what the patch
> > > > has removed or we need some other way to address it. Do you have any
> > > > better idea?
> > >
> > > I don't mind calling something like update_progress() in the specific cases
> > > that's needed, but I think those are just the
> > > if (!RelationIsLogicallyLogged(relation))
> > > if (relation->rd_rel->relrewrite && !rb->output_rewrites))
> > >
> > > To me it makes a lot more sense to call update_progress() for those, rather
> > > than generally.
> > >
> >
> > Won't it be better to call it wherever we don't invoke any wrapper
> > function like for cases REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INVALIDATION, sequence
> > changes, etc.? I was thinking that wherever we don't call the wrapper
> > function which means we don't have a chance to invoke
> > update_progress(), the timeout can happen if there are a lot of such
> > messages.
>
> ISTM that the likelihood of causing harm due to increased overhead is higher
> than the gain.
I would like to do something for this thread. So, I am planning to update the
patch as per discussion in the email chain unless someone is already working on
it.
Regards,
Wang wei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-02-19 13:46:40 | Re: windows CI failing PMSignalState->PMChildFlags[slot] == PM_CHILD_ASSIGNED |
Previous Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2023-02-19 09:57:31 | Re: Inconsistency in reporting checkpointer stats |