Hi,
On 2023-02-13 08:22:34 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:04 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > > One difference I see with the patch is that I think we will end up
> > > sending keepalive for empty prepared transactions even though we don't
> > > skip sending begin/prepare messages for those.
> >
> > With the proposed approach we reliably know whether a callback wrote
> > something, so we can tune the behaviour here fairly easily.
> >
>
> I would like to clarify a few things about the proposed approach. In
> commit_cb_wrapper()/prepare_cb_wrapper(), the patch first did
> ctx->did_write = false;, then call the commit/prepare callback (which
> will call pgoutput_commit_txn()/pgoutput_prepare_txn()) and then call
> update_progress() which will make decisions based on ctx->did_write
> flag. Now, for this to work pgoutput_commit_txn/pgoutput_prepare_txn
> should know that the transaction has performed some writes before that
> call which is currently working because pgoutput is tracking the same
> via sent_begin_txn.
I don't really see these as being related. What pgoutput does internally to
optimize for some usecases shouldn't matter to the larger infrastructure.
> Is the intention here that we still track whether BEGIN () has been sent via
> pgoutput?
Yes. If somebody later wants to propose tracking this alongside a txn and
passing that to the output plugin callbacks, we can do that. But that's
independent of fixing the broken architecture of the progress infrastructure.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
