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:
> >
> > 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?
>
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
Of those, I prefer option c) because saying LEADER_APPLY_xxx matches
the name format of the existing
WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia