MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <TYCPR01MB8373DC922E549FF3F031E9DAED8E9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJcOf-cMU_1VJ1c+9fwEBgimkj+=hHcCjj_SUfbHvKTuN=1tuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYCPR01MB8373B1614522B90BA96883E0ED929@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALDaNm3-QTZnd4rxbrUfKMM4u_vgb23LO+KW3O9LX7X6b8mr8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm130T4jr2RvpgY19SCY87UQ75wVbjrhjGj43bHV=9-LpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYCPR01MB8373FEB287F733C81C1E4D42ED989@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <TYCPR01MB8373D7AE0B6C62E5CDB03C6CED989@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <TYCPR01MB8373CFDCD60CCDB1C35CFA45ED999@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAD21AoBAREVDtAM+JGR3DcnwnOi1Nw7E_5m68ZwFUGkOkfDn1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYCPR01MB8373271BE5D4619302C05B00ED9A9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1JCbhxuO8fEaAaw8e30=5kEDaFRXpV2+opAdMoEOH5LEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYWPR01MB8362FCFAAD8D90424BEA2300ED9A9@TYWPR01MB8362.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <TYWPR01MB8362FCFAAD8D90424BEA2300ED9A9@TYWPR01MB8362.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:56:07 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1KR41bRUuPeNBSGv2+q7ROKukS3myeAUqrZMD8MEwR0DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication
 progress
To: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>,
 "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KR41bRUuPeNBSGv2%2Bq7ROKukS3myeAUqrZMD8MEwR0DQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:12 PM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com
<osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 10:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please tell us why you think the names in your proposed patch are
> > better than the existing names proposed in Sawada-San's patch? Is it because
> > those fields always contain the information of the last or latest error that
> > occurred in the corresponding subscription worker?
> This is one reason.
>
> Another big reason comes from the final alignment when we list up all columns of both patches.
> The patches in this thread is trying to introduce a column that indicates
> cumulative count of error to show all error counts that the worker got in the past.
>

Okay, I see your point and it makes sense to rename columns after
these other stats. I am not able to come up with any better names than
what is being used here. Sawada-San, do you agree with this, or do let
us know if you have any better ideas?

BTW, I think the way you are computing error_count in
pgstat_recv_subworker_error() doesn't seem correct to me because it
will accumulate the counter/bytes for the same error again and again.
You might want to update these counters after we have checked that the
received error is not the same as the previous one.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.