RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress

On Monday, October 18, 2021 6:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:23 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, September 30, 2021 12:15 PM Amit Kapila
> > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > These all views are related to untransmitted to the collector but
> > > what we really need is a view similar to pg_stat_archiver or
> > > pg_stat_bgwriter which gives information about background workers.
> > > Now, the problem as I see is if we go that route then
> > > pg_stat_subscription will no longer remain dynamic view and one
> > > might consider that as a compatibility break. The other idea I have
> > > shared is that we display these stats under the new view introduced
> > > by Sawada-San's patch [1] and probably rename that view as
> > > pg_stat_subscription_worker where all the stats (xact info and last
> > > failure information) about each worker will be displayed. Do you
> > > have any opinion on that idea or do you see any problem with it?
> >
> > Personally, I think it seems reasonable to merge the xact stat into
> > the view from sawada-san's patch.
> >
> > One problem I noticed is that pg_stat_subscription_error currently
> > have a 'count' column which show how many times the last error
> > happened. The xact stat here also have a similar value 'xact_error'. I
> > think we might need to rename it or merge them into one in some way.
> >
> > Besides, if we decide to merge xact stat into
> > pg_stat_subscription_error, some column seems need to be renamed.
> Maybe like:
> > error_message => Last_error_message, command=> last_error_command..
> >
> 
> Don't you think that keeping the view name as pg_stat_subscription_error
> would be a bit confusing if it has to display xact_info? Isn't it better to change it
> to pg_stat_subscription_worker or some other worker-specific generic name?

Yes, I agreed that rename the view to pg_stat_subscription_worker or some
other worker-specific generic name is better if we decide to move forward
with this approach.

Best regards,
Hou zj