On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:10:01 +0000, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> > The attached patch v29 has included your changes.
>
> catalogs.sgml
>
> + <para>
> + The minimum delay (ms) for applying changes.
> + </para></entry>
>
> I think we don't use unit symbols that way. Namely I think we would
> write it as "The minimum delay for applying changes in milliseconds"
>
Okay, if we prefer to use milliseconds, then how about: "The minimum
delay, in milliseconds, for applying changes"?
>
> alter_subscription.sgml
>
> are <literal>slot_name</literal>,
> <literal>synchronous_commit</literal>,
> <literal>binary</literal>, <literal>streaming</literal>,
> - <literal>disable_on_error</literal>, and
> - <literal>origin</literal>.
> + <literal>disable_on_error</literal>,
> + <literal>origin</literal>, and
> + <literal>min_apply_delay</literal>.
> </para>
>
> By the way, is there any rule for the order among the words?
>
Currently, it is in the order in which the corresponding features are added.
> They
> don't seem in alphabetical order nor in the same order to the
> create_sbuscription page.
>
In create_subscription page also, it appears to be in the order in
which those are added with a difference that they are divided into two
categories (parameters that control what happens during subscription
creation and parameters that control the subscription's replication
behavior after it has been created)
> (I seems like in the order of SUBOPT_*
> symbols, but I'm not sure it's a good idea..)
>
>
> subscriptioncmds.c
>
> + if (opts.streaming ==
> LOGICALREP_STREAM_PARALLEL &&
> + !IsSet(opts.specified_opts,
> SUBOPT_MIN_APPLY_DELAY) && sub->minapplydelay > 0)
> ..
> + if (opts.min_apply_delay > 0 &&
> + !IsSet(opts.specified_opts,
> SUBOPT_STREAMING) && sub->stream == LOGICALREP_STREAM_PARALLEL)
>
> Don't we wrap the lines?
>
>
> worker.c
>
> + if (wal_receiver_status_interval > 0 &&
> + diffms > wal_receiver_status_interval * 1000L)
> + {
> + WaitLatch(MyLatch,
> + WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT |
> WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH,
> + wal_receiver_status_interval *
> 1000L,
> + WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_APPLY_DELAY);
> + send_feedback(last_received, true, false, true);
> + }
> + else
> + WaitLatch(MyLatch,
> + WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT |
> WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH,
> + diffms,
> + WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_APPLY_DELAY);
>
> send_feedback always handles the case where
> wal_receiver_status_interval == 0.
>
It only handles when force is false but here we are using that as
true. So, not sure, if what you said would be an improvement.
> thus we can simply wait for
> min(wal_receiver_status_interval, diffms) then call send_feedback()
> unconditionally.
>
>
> -start_apply(XLogRecPtr origin_startpos)
> +start_apply(void)
>
> -LogicalRepApplyLoop(XLogRecPtr last_received)
> +LogicalRepApplyLoop(void)
>
> Does this patch requires this change?
>
I think this is because the scope of last_received has been changed so
that it can be used to pass in send_feedback() during the delay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
