Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:39 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 5:45 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > v4-0001 uses only 3 simple inline functions. Callers always pass
> > parameters as Bharath had suggested.
> >
>
> *
> - Assert(am_leader_apply_worker());
> + Assert(is_leader_apply_worker(MyLogicalRepWorker));
> ...
> - if (am_leader_apply_worker())
> + if (is_leader_apply_worker(MyLogicalRepWorker))
>
> Passing everywhere MyLogicalRepWorker not only increased the code
> change footprint but doesn't appear any better to me. Instead, let
> am_parallel_apply_worker() keep calling
> isParallelApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker) as it is doing now. I feel
> even if you or others feel that is a better idea, we can debate it
> separately after the main patch is done because as far as I understand
> that is not the core idea of this proposal.

Right, those changes were not really core. Reverted as suggested. PSA v5.

>
> * 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.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia