On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:32 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:43 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > while reading the code, I noticed that in pa_send_data() we set wait
> > > > event to WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE while
> > > sending
> > > > the message to the queue. Because this state is used in multiple
> > > > places, user might not be able to distinguish what they are waiting
> > > > for. So It seems we'd better to use WAIT_EVENT_MQ_SEND here which will
> > > > be eaier to distinguish and understand. Here is a tiny patch for that.
> > > >
> >
> > As discussed[1], we'd better invent a new state for this purpose, so here is the patch
> > that does the same.
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LTud4FLRbS0QqdZ-pjSxwfFLHC1Dx%3D6Q7nyROCvvPSfw%40mail.gmail.com
> >
>
> My first impression was the
> WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_SEND_DATA name seemed misleading
> because that makes it sound like the parallel apply worker is doing
> the sending, but IIUC it's really the opposite.
>
So, how about WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA?
> And since WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_LEADER_SEND_DATA seems too
> verbose, how about shortening the prefix for both events? E.g.
>
> BEFORE
> WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_SEND_DATA,
> WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE,
>
> AFTER
> WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PA_LEADER_SEND_DATA,
> WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PA_STATE_CHANGE,
>
I am not sure *_PA_LEADER_* is any better that what Hou-San has proposed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.