From: Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
Cc: Mons Anderson <v.perepelitsa@corp.mail.ru>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v3 0/3] relay: provide downstream lag information
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 22:45:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e265d73e-afdc-a5f2-cf33-591d5319511d@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210430153940.121271-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
Hi! Thanks for the patchset!
> Please take a look on applier notifications structure and naming. Actually
> I don't really like `downstream.lag` name either because this is not a counterpart
> for `upstream.lag` as far as I understand but rather packet traverse so maybe
> `dowstream.wal-lag` would be more suitable? Also in idle cycles downstream.lag
For me 'downstream.lag' looks good. `wal-lag` looks bad, because you will need
to take this name into quotes to use it in Lua instead of indexing via '.'.
But another option would be 'downstream.latency'.
> is not changed which might confuse the readers because `upstream.lag` does.
This is indeed not good. Should be fixed somehow. If there are no rows to ACK,
it could be dropped to 0, for example. Also you could use relay heartbeat timestamps
on the applier side to report just network latency (since there are no rows to
write to WAL).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-30 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-30 15:39 Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 15:39 ` [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v3 1/3] xrow: allow to pass timestamp via xrow_encode_vclock_timed helper Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 20:45 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 20:50 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-03 20:21 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-03 20:33 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-03 20:37 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-03 20:42 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 15:39 ` [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v3 2/3] applier: send first row's WAL time in the applier_writer_f Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 20:49 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-05 13:06 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-05 20:47 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-05-05 22:19 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 15:39 ` [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v3 3/3] relay: provide information about downstream lag Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 20:50 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-04-30 20:45 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e265d73e-afdc-a5f2-cf33-591d5319511d@tarantool.org \
--to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=v.perepelitsa@corp.mail.ru \
--cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v3 0/3] relay: provide downstream lag information' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox