On Friday, August 30, 2024 2:24 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:53 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Hou-San. Here are my review comments for v4-0001.
Thanks Shveta and Peter for giving comments ! > > > > ====== > > > > 1. Add links in the docs > > > > IMO it would be good for all these confl_* descriptions (in > > doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml) to include links back to where each of > > those conflict types was defined [1]. > > > > Indeed, when links are included to the original conflict type > > information then I think you should remove mentioning > > "track_commit_timestamp": > > + counted only when the > > + <link > linkend="guc-track-commit-timestamp"><varname>track_commit_timesta > mp</varname></link> > > + option is enabled on the subscriber. > > > > It should be obvious that you cannot count a conflict if the conflict > > does not happen, but I don't think we should scatter/duplicate those > > rules in different places saying when certain conflicts can/can't > > happen -- we should just link everywhere back to the original > > description for those rules. > > +1, will make the doc better. Changed. To add link to each conflict type, I added "<varlistentry id="conflict-xx, xreflabel=xx" to each conflict in logical-replication.sgml. > > > ~~~ > > > > 2. Arrange all the counts into an intuitive/natural order > > > > There is an intuitive/natural ordering for these counts. For example, > > the 'confl_*' count fields are in the order insert -> update -> > > delete, which LGTM. > > > > Meanwhile, the 'apply_error_count' and the 'sync_error_count' are not > > in a good order. > > > > IMO it makes more sense if everything is ordered as: > > 'sync_error_count', then 'apply_error_count', then all the 'confl_*' > > counts. > > > > This comment applies to lots of places, e.g.: > > - docs (doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml) > > - function pg_stat_get_subscription_stats (pg_proc.dat) > > - view pg_stat_subscription_stats > > (src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql) > > - TAP test SELECTs (test/subscription/t/026_stats.pl) > > > > As all those places are already impacted by this patch, I think it > > would be good if (in passing) we (if possible) also swapped the > > sync/apply counts so everything is ordered intuitively top-to-bottom > > or left-to-right. > > Not sure about this though. It does not seem to belong to the current patch. I also don't think we should handle that in this patch. Here is V5 patch which addressed above and Shveta's[1] comments. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uAZpzustNOMBhxBctHHWbBA%3DsnTAYsLpoWZg%2BcqegmD-A%40mail.gmail.com Best Regards, Hou zj
v5-0001-Collect-statistics-about-conflicts-in-logical-rep.patch
Description: v5-0001-Collect-statistics-about-conflicts-in-logical-rep.patch
