From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
Date: | 2023-07-31 13:11:00 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KfDU_dPHs4SaLAEnd95EHTePv54TwOdDC0ayC0xOG4Hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 3:25 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 7:17 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > PROBLEM:
> >
> > IMO, deducing the worker's type by examining multiple different field
> > values seems a dubious way to do it. This maybe was reasonable enough
> > when there were only 2 types, but as more get added it becomes
> > increasingly complicated.
>
> +1 for being more explicit in worker types.
>
+1. BTW, do we need the below functions (am_tablesync_worker(),
am_leader_apply_worker()) after this work?
static inline bool
am_tablesync_worker(void)
{
- return OidIsValid(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid);
+ return isTablesyncWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
}
static inline bool
am_leader_apply_worker(void)
{
- return (!am_tablesync_worker() &&
- !isParallelApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker));
+ return isLeaderApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
}
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-07-31 13:31:07 | Re: CDC/ETL system on top of logical replication with pgoutput, custom client |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-07-31 12:57:53 | Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails |