On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:21 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but each tablesync worker must have a separate relid. Why can't
> > > > we have a single hash table for both apply and table sync workers
> > > > which are hashed by sub_id + rel_id? For apply worker, the rel_id will
> > > > always be zero (InvalidOId) and tablesync workers will have a unique
> > > > OID for rel_id, so we should be able to uniquely identify each of
> > > > apply and table sync workers.
> > >
> > > What I imagined is to extend the subscription statistics, for
> > > instance, transaction stats[1]. By having a hash table for
> > > subscriptions, we can store those statistics into an entry of the hash
> > > table and we can think of subscription errors as also statistics of
> > > the subscription. So we can have another hash table for errors in an
> > > entry of the subscription hash table. For example, the subscription
> > > entry struct will be something like:
> > >
> > > typedef struct PgStat_StatSubEntry
> > > {
> > > Oid subid; /* hash key */
> > >
> > > HTAB *errors; /* apply and table sync errors */
> > >
> > > /* transaction stats of subscription */
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_commit;
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_commit_bytes;
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_error;
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_error_bytes;
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_abort;
> > > PgStat_Counter xact_abort_bytes;
> > > PgStat_Counter failure_count;
> > > } PgStat_StatSubEntry;
> > >
> >
> > I think these additional stats will be displayed via
> > pg_stat_subscription, right? If so, the current stats of that view are
> > all in-memory and are per LogicalRepWorker which means that for those
> > stats also we will have different entries for apply and table sync
> > worker. If this understanding is correct, won't it be better to
> > represent this as below?
>
> I was thinking that we have a different stats view for example
> pg_stat_subscription_xacts that has entries per subscription. But your
> idea seems better to me.
I mean that showing statistics (including transaction statistics and
errors) per logical replication worker seems better to me, no matter
what view shows these statistics. I'll change the patch in that way.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/