On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:32 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:43 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > <houzj.f...@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. And since WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_LEADER_SEND_DATA seems too verbose, how about shortening the prefix for both events? E.g. BEFORE WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_SEND_DATA, WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PARALLEL_APPLY_STATE_CHANGE, AFTER WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PA_LEADER_SEND_DATA, WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_PA_STATE_CHANGE, ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
