From: | "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Nathan Bossart' <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |
Date: | 2022-11-22 07:18:40 |
Message-ID: | TYCPR01MB83731782CB6FF64C3F058F29ED0D9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:39 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:03:52AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > Just One comment: IIUC the statement "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION" can be
> > executed inside the transaction. So if two subscriptions are altered
> > in the same transaction, only one of them will awake. Is it expected
> behavior?
> >
> > I think we can hold a suboid list and record oids when the
> > subscription are altered, and then the backend process can consume all
> > of list cells at the end of the transaction.
>
> I think you are correct. I did it this way in v2. I've also moved the bulk of
> the logic to logical/worker.c.
Hi, thanks for updating.
I just quickly had a look at your patch and had one minor question.
With this patch, when we execute alter subscription in a sub transaction
and additionally rollback to it, is there any possibility that
we'll wake up the workers that don't need to do so ?
I'm not sure if this brings about some substantial issue,
but just wondering if there is any need of improvement for this.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-11-22 07:23:23 | FOR UPDATE may leave spurious locks |
Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-11-22 07:12:27 | Re: Split index and table statistics into different types of stats |