Re: Asynchronous and "direct" IO support for PostgreSQL.

2021-02-24 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
Hi, Thank you for the amazing and great work. On 23.02.2021 15:03, Andres Freund wrote: ## Stats There are two new views: pg_stat_aios showing AIOs that are currently in-progress, pg_stat_aio_backends showing per-backend statistics about AIO. As a DBA I would like to propose a few amendments

Re: Asynchronous and "direct" IO support for PostgreSQL.

2021-02-25 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
Hi, On 25.02.2021 02:03, Andres Freund wrote: pg_stat_aio_backends. This stat is based on COUNTERs, which is great, but the issue here is that its lifespan is limited by the lifespan of the backend processes - once the backend exits the stat will no longer be available - which could be inappropr

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

2021-07-05 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
Hi, Have a few notes about pg_stat_logical_replication_error from the DBA point of view (which will use this view in the future). 1. As I understand it, this view might contain many errors related to different subscriptions. It is better to name "pg_stat_logical_replication_errors" using the plural

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

2021-07-06 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
errors). If it is kept - the flag telling about the error is resolved is needed (or set xid to NULL). I mean when the user is watching the view, he should be able to identify if the error has already been resolved or not. -- Regards, Alexey On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

2021-07-08 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:43 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 7:13 PM Alexey Lesovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > >> > >> > Also, I'd like to suggest thinking twice about th

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

2021-07-11 Thread Alexey Lesovsky
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Ok, looks nice. But I am curious how this will work in the case when > there are two (or more) errors in the same subscription, but different > relations? > > > > We can't proceed unless the first error is resolved, so there > shouldn't b