On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:34 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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).
OK, here is patch that change the event name to WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_APPLY_SEND_DATA. Best Regard, Hou zj
v2-0001-Add-a-new-wait-state-and-use-it-when-sending-data.patch
Description: v2-0001-Add-a-new-wait-state-and-use-it-when-sending-data.patch
