Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Date: 2023-01-10 05:46:38
Message-ID: 20230110.144638.1087113443723851718.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello.

At Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:21:03 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> Pushed the first (0001) patch.

It added the following error message.

+ seg = dsm_attach(handle);
+ if (!seg)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
+ errmsg("unable to map dynamic shared memory segment")));

On the other hand we already have the following one in parallel.c
(another in pg_prewarm)

seg = dsm_attach(DatumGetUInt32(main_arg));
if (seg == NULL)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
errmsg("could not map dynamic shared memory segment")));

Although I don't see a technical difference between the two, all the
other occurances including the just above (except test_shm_mq) use
"could not". A faint memory in my non-durable memory tells me that we
have a policy that we use "can/could not" than "unable".

(Mmm. I find ones in StartBackgroundWorker and sepgsql_client_auth.)

Shouldn't we use the latter than the former? If that's true, it seems
to me that test_shm_mq also needs the same amendment to avoid the same
mistake in future.

=====
index 2e5914d5d9..a2d7474ed4 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/logical/applyparallelworker.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/applyparallelworker.c
@@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ ParallelApplyWorkerMain(Datum main_arg)
if (!seg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
- errmsg("unable to map dynamic shared memory segment")));
+ errmsg("could not map dynamic shared memory segment")));

toc = shm_toc_attach(PG_LOGICAL_APPLY_SHM_MAGIC, dsm_segment_address(seg));
if (!toc)
diff --git a/src/test/modules/test_shm_mq/worker.c b/src/test/modules/test_shm_mq/worker.c
index 8807727337..005b56023b 100644
--- a/src/test/modules/test_shm_mq/worker.c
+++ b/src/test/modules/test_shm_mq/worker.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ test_shm_mq_main(Datum main_arg)
if (seg == NULL)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
- errmsg("unable to map dynamic shared memory segment")));
+ errmsg("could not map dynamic shared memory segment")));
toc = shm_toc_attach(PG_TEST_SHM_MQ_MAGIC, dsm_segment_address(seg));
if (toc == NULL)
ereport(ERROR,
=====

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brar Piening 2023-01-10 06:08:08 Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-01-10 05:36:54 Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order