On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:40 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
<wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 18:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 3:55 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> > <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've checked it and it looks good to me.
> > > Rebased the other patches and ran the pgident for the patch set.
> > >
> > > Attach the new patch set.
> > >
> >
> > I have added a few DEBUG messages and changed a few comments in the
> > 0001 patch. With that v71-0001* looks good to me and I'll commit it
> > later this week (by Thursday or Friday) unless there are any major
> > comments or objections.
>
> Thanks for your improvement.
>
> Rebased the patch set because the new change in HEAD (c8e1ba7).
> Attach the new patch set.
There are some unused parameters in v72 patches:
+static bool
+pa_can_start(TransactionId xid)
+{
+ Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(xid));
'xid' is used only for the assertion check but I don't think it's necessary.
---
+/*
+ * Make sure the leader apply worker tries to read from our error
queue one more
+ * time. This guards against the case where we exit uncleanly without sending
+ * an ErrorResponse, for example because some code calls proc_exit directly.
+ */
+static void
+pa_shutdown(int code, Datum arg)
Similarly, we don't use 'code' here.
---
+/*
+ * Handle a single protocol message received from a single parallel apply
+ * worker.
+ */
+static void
+HandleParallelApplyMessage(ParallelApplyWorkerInfo *winfo, StringInfo msg)
In addition, the same is true for 'winfo'.
The rest looks good to me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
