On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:28 PM Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we fear a large number of entries for such workers then won't it be
> better to show the value of these stats only for apply workers. I
> think normally the table sync workers perform only copy operation or
> maybe a fixed number of xacts, so, one might not be interested in the
> transaction stats of these workers. I find merging only specific stats
> of two different types of workers confusing.
>
> What do others think about this?
>
I think it might be OK to NOT include the transaction stats of the tablesync workers, but my understanding (and slight concern) is that currently there is potentially some overlap in the work done by the tablesync and apply workers - perhaps the small patch (see [1]) proposed by Peter Smith could also be considered, in order to make that distinction of work clearer, and the stats more meaningful?
----
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia