MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220215182641.2cejma6tcgeoqyw2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAA4eK1Jwn5hhgHJWZ9n+wYyQEk+brfR1zkuqLjh=waji8RYWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAqEt=TbUDY96Uhf9pNuh-NDR_3-CByd+xR=tFEq==1NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoA-MVZcMA1iYwbtvTCOHx1SwG8amQUTT8j2ssh2zuc6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220218203255.d3evl6qi2n6gxy6b@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAD21AoDTO3bJvrc39Tv3VCeyUzZpimXnJuRhHQhKyjOWorHeOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220219160203.y5w2ktc2utthn7pe@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAD21AoA_r+Wc-zJZdy4Lii3oOvvdGcLwrY=2Y4y63HueYSd6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221053453.lo6fzmji23ennvgj@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAA4eK1+j00Pc+p=AfJLXh-a+OJ-a0UD4adMr2tRkQvKG_LggHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221074806.nyhdberpuwbcbudp@alap3.anarazel.de>
In-Reply-To: <20220221074806.nyhdberpuwbcbudp@alap3.anarazel.de>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:01 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1J3dhfMRNQ6Q585nFr1vmXaTXVW9qv4hmUxLwDwJp-9RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J3dhfMRNQ6Q585nFr1vmXaTXVW9qv4hmUxLwDwJp-9RQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:18 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-21 12:39:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Fair enough. Then, how about the following keeping the following information:
>
> Mostly sounds good.
>
>
> > * subid (subscription id)
> > * subname (subscription name)
>
> Coming from catalog, via join, I assume?
>

The subname would be from pg_subscription catalog similar to what we
are doing now for pg_stat_subscription_workers.

>
> > * sync_error_count/sync_failure_count (number of timed table sync failed)
> > * apply_error_count/apply_failure_count (number of times apply failed)
>
> Yep.
>
>
> > * sync_success_count (number of table syncs successfully finished)
>
> This one I'm not quite convinced by. You can't rely on precise counts with
> pgstats and we should be able to get a better idea from somewhere more
> permanent which relations succeeded?  But it also doesn't do much harm, so ...
>

We can get precise information from pg_subscription_rel (rels that are
in ready/finish_copy state) but OTOH, during refresh some of the rels
would have been dropped or if a user creates/refreshes publication
with copy_data = false, then we won't get information about how many
table syncs succeeded? I have also kept this to make the sync
information look consistent considering we have sync_failure_count.

>
> > * apply_commit_count (number of transactions applied successfully)
> > * apply_rollback_count (number of transactions explicitly rolled back)
>
> What does "explicit" mean here?
>

It is for the Rollback Prepared case and probably for streaming of
in-progress transactions that eventually get rolled back.

>
> > * stats_reset (Time at which these statistics were last reset)
> >
> > The view name could be pg_stat_subscription_lrep,
> > pg_stat_logical_replication, or something on those lines.
>
> pg_stat_subscription_stats :)
>

Having *stat* two times in the name sounds slightly odd to me but let
us see what others think. One more option could be
pg_stat_subscription_replication.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.