On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 6:15 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:31:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Attached is a rebased 0003, just to keep the cfbot happy. > > I'm kind of wondering whether 0003 is worth the complexity TBH, > > but in any case I ran out of time to look at it closely today. > > Yeah. It's not as bad as I was expecting, but it does add a bit more > complexity than is probably warranted. >
Personally, I think it is not as complex as we were initially thinking and does the job accurately unless we are missing something. So, +1 to proceed with this approach. I haven't looked in detail but isn't it better to explain somewhere in the comments that it achieves to rate limit the restart of workers in case of error and allows them to restart immediately in case of subscription parameter change? Another minor point: Don't we need to set the launcher's latch after removing the entry from the hash table to avoid the launcher waiting on the latch for a bit longer? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
