Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:12:37 -0800
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
Message-ID: <20230105041237.GA189619@nathanxps13>
References: 
 <CAGPVpCTUuKyxB5f3exgDMBRTivbN5uHVkD=YfXmgznrdnwVOQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221206192551.GA3078082@nathanxps13>
 <20221206212954.GA3403597@nathanxps13>
 <CAGPVpCTkdaOyBLXB435VXq0RA1cHLFQut7BPm6t8D4dsdiEXZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221207181145.GA3698731@nathanxps13>
 <CAA4eK1Kr+aAaKVwKgy3kyQzuTDuc+_ahEaaOMe3ZF4SyZQSG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230103182155.GC204418@nathanxps13>
 <CAA4eK1+T1LqSRsYnwQ-FHLbRFJwedT2Bv0w6Fyz4fOAiWsaXoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230104173304.GA296349@nathanxps13>
 <CAA4eK1KyddKF4O36vN+5vnV3UFeT7ogi9TaTYasxe5OY+jzpMg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1KyddKF4O36vN+5vnV3UFeT7ogi9TaTYasxe5OY+jzpMg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230105041237.GA189619%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:09:12AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:03 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:41:47AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > If so, we probably also need to
>> > ensure that table_states_valid is marked false probably via
>> > invalidations so that we can get the latest state and then perform
>> > this check. I guess if we can do that then we can directly move the
>> > restart logic to the end.
>>
>> IMO this shows the advantage of just waking up the worker.  It doesn't
>> change the apply worker's behavior besides making it more responsive.
> 
> But there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that the result for
> AllTablesyncsReady() will change between the time it is invoked
> earlier in the function and at the place you have it in the patch.
> This is because the value of 'table_states_valid' may not have
> changed. So, how is this supposed to work?

The call to CommandCounterIncrement() should set table_states_valid to
false if needed.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com