RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress

From: "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com" <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress
Date: 2022-03-28 06:10:31
Message-ID: TYCPR01MB83730827F456869CFD43460AED1D9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

On Friday, March 25, 2022 2:36 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:58 AM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > This patch introduces two new subscription statistics columns
> > (apply_commit_count and apply_rollback_count) to the
> > pg_stat_subscription_stats view for counting cumulative transactions
> > commits/rollbacks for a particular subscription. Now, users can
> > already see the total number of xacts committed/rolled back in a
> > particular database via pg_stat_database, so this can be considered
> > duplicate information.
>
> Right.
...
> > I am not sure if it is worth adding this additional information or how
> > useful it will be for users. Does anyone else want to weigh in on
> > this?
> >
> > If nobody else sees value in this then I feel it is better to mark
> > this patch as Returned with feedback or Rejected. We can come back to
> > it later if we see more demand for this.
>
> Marking as Returned with feedback makes sense to me.
OK. Thank you so much for sharing your opinions, Sawada-san and Amit-san.

I changed the status of this entry to "Returned with feedback" accordingly.

Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com 2022-03-28 06:11:08 RE: Logical replication timeout problem
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-03-28 05:37:34 Re: Race conditions in 019_replslot_limit.pl