From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
Date: | 2023-08-11 11:13:35 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J30-uo6MOEu9fENXAkQrEfxJ02AGWe+o93U6BQLak5rg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:41 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 7:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:50 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * If you do the above then there won't be a need to change the
> > > > variable name is_parallel_apply_worker in logicalrep_worker_launch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Done.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think the addition of two new macros isTablesyncWorker() and
> > isLeaderApplyWorker() adds much value, so removed those and ran
> > pgindent. I am planning to commit this patch early next week unless
> > you or others have any comments.
> >
>
> Thanks for considering this patch fit for pushing.
>
> Actually, I recently found 2 more overlooked places in the launcher.c
> code which can benefit from using the isTablesyncWorker(w) macro that
> was removed in patch v6-0001.
>
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ pg_stat_get_subscription(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
worker_pid = worker.proc->pid;
values[0] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.subid);
- if (OidIsValid(worker.relid))
+ if (isTablesyncWorker(&worker))
values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.relid);
I don't see this as a good fit for using isTablesyncWorker(). If we
were returning worker_type then using it would be okay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2023-08-11 11:31:09 | Re: libpq compression (part 2) |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2023-08-11 10:56:26 | Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication |