RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Subject | RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |
Date | |
Msg-id | OSBPR01MB488876F715BBB0DFC56F0129EDBD9@OSBPR01MB4888.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, October 18, 2021 11:52 AM Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 2:13 PM Osumi, Takamichi wrote: > > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:54 PM Hou, > Zhijie<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 30, 2021 12:15 PM Amit Kapila > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 8:22 AM Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tues, Sep 28, 2021 6:05 PM Amit Kapila > > > > > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't we keep the current and new stats both in-memory and > > > > > > persist on disk? So, the persistent stats data will be used to > > > > > > fill the in-memory counters after restarting of workers, > > > > > > otherwise, we will always refer to in-memory values. > > > > > > > > > > I think this approach works, but I have another concern about it. > > > > > > > > > > The current pg_stat_subscription view is listed as "Dynamic > > > > > Statistics Views" in the document, the data in it seems about > > > > > the worker process, and the view data shows what the current > > > > > worker did. But if we keep the new xact stat persist, then it's > > > > > not what the current worker did, it looks more related to the > > > > > subscription historic data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point. > > > > > > > > > Adding a new view seems resonalble, but it will bring another > > > > > subscription related view which might be too much. OTOH, I can > > > > > see there are already some different views[1] including xact > > > > > stat, maybe adding another one is accepatble ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > These all views are related to untransmitted to the collector but > > > > what we really need is a view similar to pg_stat_archiver or > > > > pg_stat_bgwriter which gives information about background workers. > > > > Now, the problem as I see is if we go that route then > > > > pg_stat_subscription will no longer remain dynamic view and one > > > > might consider that as a compatibility break. The other idea I > > > > have shared is that we display these stats under the new view > > > > introduced by Sawada-San's patch [1] and probably rename that view > > > > as pg_stat_subscription_worker where all the stats (xact info and > > > > last failure information) about each worker will be displayed. Do > > > > you have any opinion on that idea or do you see any problem with it? > > > > > > Personally, I think it seems reasonable to merge the xact stat into > > > the view from sawada-san's patch. > > > > > > One problem I noticed is that pg_stat_subscription_error currently > > > have a 'count' column which show how many times the last error > > > happened. The xact stat here also have a similar value 'xact_error'. > > > I think we might need to rename it or merge them into one in some way. > > > > > > Besides, if we decide to merge xact stat into > > > pg_stat_subscription_error, some column seems need to be renamed. > > Maybe like: > > > error_message => Last_error_message, command=> > last_error_command.. > > Yeah, we must make them distinguished clearly. > > > > I guessed that you are concerned about amount of renaming codes that > > could be a bit large or you come up with a necessity to consider the > > all column names of the pg_stat_subscription_worker together all at > > once in advance. > > > > It's because my instant impression is, when we go with the current > > xact stats column definitions (xact_commit, xact_commit_bytes, > > xact_error, xact_error_bytes, xact_abort, xact_abort_bytes), the > > renaming problem can be solved if I write one additional patch or > > extend the main patch of xact stats to handle renaming. > > (This can work to keep both threads independent from each other). > > > > Did you have some concern that cannot be handled by this way ? > Hi, > > Currently, I don't find some unsolvable issues in this approach. Okay. Glad to hear that. Then, I can restart my implementation with this direction. Best Regards, Takamichi Osumi
pgsql-hackers by date: