On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:39 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:48 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:58:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:32 AM Masahiko Sawada > > ><masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 06:57, Tomas Vondra > > >> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >What if the decoding has been performed by multiple backends using the > > >> > >same slot? In that case, it will be difficult to make the judgment > > >> > >for the value of logical_decoding_work_mem based on stats. It would > > >> > >make sense if we provide a way to set logical_decoding_work_mem for a > > >> > >slot but not sure if that is better than what we have now. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> I thought that the stats are relevant to what > > >> logical_decoding_work_mem value was but not with who performed logical > > >> decoding. So even if multiple backends perform logical decoding using > > >> the same slot, the user can directly use stats as long as > > >> logical_decoding_work_mem value doesn’t change. > > >>
Today, I thought about it again, and if we consider the point that logical_decoding_work_mem value doesn’t change much then having the stats at slot-level would also allow computing logical_decoding_work_mem based on stats. Do you think it is a reasonable assumption that users won't change logical_decoding_work_mem for different processes (WALSender, etc.)? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
