On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
So, how about WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA? > 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, > I am not sure *_PA_LEADER_* is any better that what Hou-San has proposed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
