On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:30:45PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:07:26AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:28:53AM +0200, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On 23 April 2017 at 01:10, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The time based lag tracking commit [1] added interface for logging > > > > progress of replication so that we can report lag as time interval > > > > instead of just bytes. But the patch didn't contain patch for the > > > > builtin logical replication. > > > > > > > > So I wrote something that implements this. I didn't like all that much > > > > the API layering in terms of exporting the walsender's LagTrackerWrite() > > > > for use by plugin directly. Normally output plugin does not have to care > > > > if it's running under walsender or not, it uses abstracted write > > > > interface for that which can be implemented in various ways (that's how > > > > we implement SQL interface to logical decoding after all). So I decided > > > > to add another function to the logical decoding write api called > > > > update_progress and call that one from the output plugin. The walsender > > > > then implements that new API to call the LagTrackerWrite() while the SQL > > > > interface just does not implement it at all. This seems like cleaner way > > > > of doing it. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Agree cleaner. > > > > > > I don't see any pacing or comments about it, nor handling of > > > intermediate messages while we process a large transaction. > > > > > > I'll look at adding some pacing code in WalSndUpdateProgress() > > > > [Action required within three days.] > > > > Simon, I understand, from an annotation on the open items list, that you > > have > > volunteered to own this item. Please observe the policy on open item > > ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of this > > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all > > fixed > > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your > > efforts > > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > > > [1] > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by 2017-05-11 06:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team ownership without further notice. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
