On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 7:45 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, IIUC all the LR events are named WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_xxx.
> >
> > So names like the below seem correct format:
> >
> > a) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA
> > b) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_SEND_DATA
> > c) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_APPLY_SEND_DATA
>
> Personally I'm fine even without "LEADER" in the wait event name since
> we don't have "who is waiting" in it. IIUC a row of pg_stat_activity
> shows who, and the wait event name shows "what the process is
> waiting". So I prefer (a).
>
This logic makes sense to me. So, let's go with (a).
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.