Re: Logical replication timeout problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5sOvWbXwMCpeWrE+Jfu=Xbi4y5AkrNedSPzELYq43VDYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical replication timeout problem  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical replication timeout problem
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > I am a bit worried about the indirections that the wrappers and hooks
> > create. Output plugins call OutputPluginUpdateProgress() in callbacks
> > but I don't see why  ReorderBufferProcessTXN() needs a callback to
> > call OutputPluginUpdateProgress.
> >
>
> Yeah, I think we can do it as we are doing the previous approach but
> we need an additional wrapper (update_progress_cb_wrapper()) as the
> current patch has so that we can add error context information. This
> is similar to why we have a wrapper for all other callbacks like
> change_cb_wrapper.
>

Ultimately OutputPluginUpdateProgress() will be called - which in turn
will call ctx->update_progress. I don't see wrappers around
OutputPluginWrite or OutputPluginPrepareWrite. But I see that those
two are called always from output plugin, so indirectly those are
called through a wrapper. I also see that update_progress_cb_wrapper()
is similar, as far as wrapper is concerned, to
ReorderBufferUpdateProgress() in the earlier patch.
ReorderBufferUpdateProgress() looks more readable than the wrapper.

If we want to keep the wrapper at least we should use a different
variable name. update_progress is also there LogicalDecodingContext
and will be indirectly called from ReorderBuffer::update_progress.
Somebody might think that there's some recursion involved there.
That's a mighty confusion.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Next
From: "Karl O. Pinc"
Date:
Subject: Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page