Horton

RE: Logical replication timeout problem

Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-01-20T07:17:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 19:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:13 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > + */
> > > + ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB update_progress;
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting changing the name of the above variable? If so, how
> > > about apply_progress, progress, or updateprogress? If you don't like
> > > any of these then feel free to suggest something else. If we change
> > > the variable name then accordingly, we need to update
> > > ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB as well.
> > >
> >
> > I would liked to have all the callback names renamed with prefix
> > "rbcb_xxx" so that they have very less chances of conflicting with
> > similar names in the code base. But it's probably late to do that :).
> >
> > How are update_txn_progress since the CB is supposed to be used only
> > within a transaction? or update_progress_txn?
> >
> 
> Personally, I would prefer 'apply_progress' as it would be similar to
> a few other callbacks like apply_change, apply_truncate, or as is
> proposed by patch update_progress again because it is similar to
> existing callbacks like commit_prepared. If you and others don't like
> any of those then we can go for 'update_progress_txn' as well. Anybody
> else has an opinion on this?

I think 'update_progress_txn' might be better. Because I think this name seems
to make it easier to know that this callback is used to update process when
processing txn. So, I rename it to 'update_progress_txn'.

I have addressed all the comments and here is the new version patch.

Regards,
Wang Wei

Commits

  1. Fix the logical replication timeout during large DDLs.

  2. Fix the logical replication timeout during large transactions.

  3. Rethink the delay-checkpoint-end mechanism in the back-branches.

  4. Revert "Logical decoding of sequences"

  5. Skip empty transactions for logical replication.

  6. Allow specifying column lists for logical replication

  7. Add decoding of sequences to built-in replication

  8. Fix ABI break introduced by commit 4daa140a2f.

  9. Lag tracking for logical replication