On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09 PM wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I skip tracking lag during a transaction just like the current HEAD.
> > Attach the new patch.
> >
>
> Thanks, please find the updated patch where I have slightly modified
> the comments.
>
> Sawada-San, Euler, do you have any opinion on this approach? I
> personally still prefer the approach implemented in v10 [1] especially
> due to the latest finding by Wang-San that we can't update the
> lag-tracker apart from when it is invoked at the transaction end.
> However, I am fine if we like this approach more.
Thank you for updating the patch.
The current patch looks much better than v10 which requires to call to
update_progress() every path.
Regarding v15 patch, I'm concerned a bit that the new function name,
update_progress(), is too generic. How about
update_replation_progress() or something more specific name?
---
+ if (end_xact)
+ {
+ /* Update progress tracking at xact end. */
+ OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx, skipped_xact, end_xact);
+ changes_count = 0;
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * After continuously processing CHANGES_THRESHOLD changes,
we try to send
+ * a keepalive message if required.
+ *
+ * We don't want to try sending a keepalive message after
processing each
+ * change as that can have overhead. Testing reveals that there is no
+ * noticeable overhead in doing it after continuously
processing 100 or so
+ * changes.
+ */
+#define CHANGES_THRESHOLD 100
+ if (++changes_count >= CHANGES_THRESHOLD)
+ {
+ OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx, skipped_xact, end_xact);
+ changes_count = 0;
+ }
Can we merge two if branches since we do the same things? Or did you
separate them for better readability?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
