Re: tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on?

On 21/04/17 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/21/17 10:11, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 21/04/17 16:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 4/20/17 14:29, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>> + /* Find unused worker slot. */
>>>> + if (!w->in_use)
>>>> {
>>>> - worker = &LogicalRepCtx->workers[slot];
>>>> - break;
>>>> + worker = w;
>>>> + slot = i;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Doesn't this still need a break? Otherwise it always picks the last slot.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it will pick the last slot, does that matter though, is the first
>> one better somehow?
>>
>> We can't break because we also need to continue the counter (I think the
>> issue that the counter solves is probably just theoretical, but still).
>
> I see. I think the code would be less confusing if we break the loop
> like before and call logicalrep_sync_worker_count() separately.
>
>> Hmm actually, maybe the if (!w->in_use) should be if (worker == NULL &&
>> !w->in_use)?
>
> That would also do it. But it's getting a bit fiddly.
>

I just wanted to avoid looping twice, especially since the garbage
collecting code has to also do the loop. I guess I'll go with my
original coding for this then which was to put retry label above the
loop first, then try finding worker slot, if found call the
logicalrep_sync_worker_count and if not found do the garbage collection
and if we cleaned up something then goto retry.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services