| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: subscription/015_stream sometimes breaks |
| Date: | 2023-08-29 04:18:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+yLPNN5jj2ezONZ5rZ7bc2JYNtYCfwWh3A4Y0g3vghmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was pushed.
>
> 1. In the am_xxx functions, why is there Assert 'in_use' only for the
> APPLY / PARALLEL_APPLY workers but not for TABLESYNC workers?
>
> 2. In the am_xxx functions there is now Assert 'in_use', so why are we
> still using macros to check again what we already asserted is not
> possible? (Or, if the checking overkill was a deliberate choice then
> why is there no isLeaderApplyWorker macro?)
>
> ~
>
> PSA a small patch to address these.
>
I find your suggestions reasonable. Alvaro, do you have any comments?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-08-29 04:25:24 | Re: Query execution in Perl TAP tests needs work |
| Previous Message | a.rybakina | 2023-08-29 03:37:51 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |