On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:09 AM wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com
<wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 12:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 8:28 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems I didn't make myself clear. The callbacks I'm referring to the
> > > *_cb_wrapper functions. After every ctx->callbacks.foo_cb() call into a
> > > *_cb_wrapper() function, we have something like:
> > >
> > > if (ctx->progress & PGOUTPUT_PROGRESS_FOO)
> > > NewUpdateProgress(ctx, false);
> > >
> > > The NewUpdateProgress function would contain a logic similar to the
> > > update_progress() from the proposed patch. (A different function name here
> > just
> > > to avoid confusion.)
> > >
> > > The output plugin is responsible to set ctx->progress with the callback
> > > variables (for example, PGOUTPUT_PROGRESS_CHANGE for change_cb())
> > that we would
> > > like to run NewUpdateProgress.
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like a conflicting approach to what we currently do.
> > Currently, OutputPluginUpdateProgress() is called from the xact
> > related pgoutput functions like pgoutput_commit_txn(),
> > pgoutput_prepare_txn(), pgoutput_commit_prepared_txn(), etc. So, if we
> > follow what you are saying then for some of the APIs like
> > pgoutput_change/_message/_truncate, we need to set the parameter to
> > invoke NewUpdateProgress() which will internally call
> > OutputPluginUpdateProgress(), and for the remaining APIs, we will call
> > in the corresponding pgoutput_* function. I feel if we want to make it
> > more generic than the current patch, it is better to directly call
> > what you are referring to here as NewUpdateProgress() in all remaining
> > APIs like pgoutput_change/_truncate, etc.
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> According to your suggestion, improve the patch to make it more generic.
> Attach the new patch.
>
typedef void (*LogicalOutputPluginWriterUpdateProgress) (struct
LogicalDecodingContext *lr,
XLogRecPtr Ptr,
TransactionId xid,
- bool skipped_xact
+ bool skipped_xact,
+ bool last_write
In this approach, I don't think we need an additional parameter
last_write. Let's do the work related to keepalive without a
parameter, do you see any problem with that?
Also, let's try to evaluate how it impacts lag functionality for large
transactions?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
