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

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.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services