On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 7:45 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > Yes, IIUC all the LR events are named WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_xxx. > > > > So names like the below seem correct format: > > > > a) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA > > b) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_SEND_DATA > > c) WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_LEADER_APPLY_SEND_DATA > > Personally I'm fine even without "LEADER" in the wait event name since > we don't have "who is waiting" in it. IIUC a row of pg_stat_activity > shows who, and the wait event name shows "what the process is > waiting". So I prefer (a). >
This logic makes sense to me. So, let's go with (a). -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
