On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:41 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the existing design is superior as it allows the flexibility
> > > to create transaction files in different temp_tablespaces which is
> > > quite important to consider as we know the files will be created only
> > > for large transactions. Once we fix the sharedfileset for a worker all
> > > the files will be created in the temp_tablespaces chosen for the first
> > > time apply worker creates it even if it got changed at some later
> > > point of time (user can change its value and then do reload config
> > > which I think will impact the worker settings as well). This all can
> > > happen because we set the tablespaces at the time of
> > > SharedFileSetInit.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree with this point, that if we use the single shared
> > fileset then it will always use the same tablespace for all the
> > streaming transactions. And, we might get the benefit of concurrent
> > I/O if we use different tablespaces as we are not immediately flushing
> > the files to the disk.
> >
>
> Okay, so let's retain the original approach then. I have made a few
> cosmetic modifications in the first two patches which include updating
> docs, comments, slightly modify the commit message, and change the
> code to match the nearby code. One change which you might have a
> different opinion is below:
>
> + case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_READ:
> + event_name = "ReorderLogicalChangesRead";
> + break;
> + case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_WRITE:
> + event_name = "ReorderLogicalChangesWrite";
> + break;
> + case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_READ:
> + event_name = "ReorderLogicalSubxactRead";
> + break;
> + case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_WRITE:
> + event_name = "ReorderLogicalSubxactWrite";
> + break;
>
> Why do we want to name these events starting with name as Reorder*? I
> think these are used in subscriber-side, so no need to use the word
> Reorder, so I have removed it from the attached patch. I am planning
> to push the first patch (v53-0001-Extend-the-BufFile-interface) in
> this series tomorrow unless you have any comments on the same.
Your changes in 0001 and 0002, looks fine to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com