Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-02-03T09:55:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 02.02.22 07:54, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> Where do you propose to store this information? >> >> >> pg_subscription_worker >> >> The error message and context is very important. Just make sure it is only non-null when the worker state is "syncing failed" (or whatever term we use). We could name the table something like pg_subscription_worker_error, so it's explicit that it is collecting error information only. > Sure, but is this the reason you want to store all the error info in > the system catalog? I agree that providing more error info could be > useful and also possibly the previously failed (apply) xacts info as > well but I am not able to see why you want to have that sort of info > in the catalog. I could see storing info like err_lsn/err_xid that can > allow to proceed to apply worker automatically or to slow down the > launch of errored apply worker but not all sort of other error info > (like err_cnt, err_code, err_message, err_time, etc.). I want to know > why you are insisting to make all the error info persistent via the > system catalog? Let's flip this around and ask, why not? Tables are the place to store data, by default.
Commits
-
Reconsider pg_stat_subscription_workers view.
- 7a8507329085 15.0 landed
-
Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.
- 8d74fc96db5f 15.0 cited