On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:32 AM Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 10:15 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Observation: I do not see UpdateDecodingStats() being triggered for > > > this non-transactional message. > > > > > > > I think that is probably a bug. I see that ReorderBufferQueueMessage() > > queues messages for transactional messages and which would then > > probably be sent later along with commit, so its data will be counted > > by UpdateDecodingStats. But the question is shouldn't we consider the > > data for non-transactional messages as well? > > > > I am also replying to your earlier comment > > > BTW, this also contains changes from pgoutput_message() which could be > > non-transactional. So, saying transaction changes may not be > > appropriate. > > > > We should consider the non-transactional messages as well in > sent_bytes, since that amount of data is sent. Whether we can use the > term "transaction changes" in the description of sent_bytes if we > include non-transactional messages is questionable. I used > "transactional changes" in the description of "sent_bytes" to be > consistent with the description of total_bytes. Looks like you are > suggesting that not accounting for non-transaction messages in > total_bytes is a bug, if we fix that, are we going to fix the > description of "total_bytes"? >
Yes, we should do that. > If yes, it makes sense to mention > non-transactional messages separately in sent_bytes description. We > can modify my previous suggestion as > > Amount of transaction changes and non-transactional messages sent > downstream in the output plugin > Isn't it better to use something on the lines of what Michael is proposing in his last email [1]? [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/abiQe4fxR2fp317F%40paquier.xyz -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
