Re: Consistent coding for the naming of LR workers

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:13 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> There are different types of Logical Replication workers -- e.g.
> tablesync workers, apply workers, and parallel apply workers.
>
> The logging and errors often name these worker types, but during a
> recent code review, I noticed some inconsistency in the way this is
> done:
> a) there is a common function get_worker_name() to return the name for
> the worker type, -- OR --
> b) the worker name is just hardcoded in the message/error
>
> I think it is not ideal to cut/paste the same hardwired strings over
> and over. IMO it just introduces an unnecessary risk of subtle naming
> differences creeping in.
>
> ~~
>
> It is better to have a *single* point where these worker names are
> defined, so then all output uses identical LR worker nomenclature.
>

+1. I think makes error strings in the code look a bit shorter. I
think it is better to park the patch for the next CF to avoid
forgetting about it.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.