On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 3. > > > > <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > > + <structfield>leader_pid</structfield> <type>integer</type> > > + </para> > > + <para> > > + Process ID of the leader apply worker if this process is a parallel > > + apply worker; NULL if this process is a leader apply worker or does > > not > > + participate in parallel apply, or a synchronization worker > > + </para></entry> > > > > I felt this change is giving too many details and ended up just > > muddying the water. > > > > I see that we give a similar description for other parameters as well. > For example leader_pid in pg_stat_activity, >
BTW, shouldn't we update leader_pid column in pg_stat_activity as well to display apply leader PID for parallel apply workers? It will currently display for other parallel operations like a parallel vacuum, so I don't see a reason to not do the same for parallel apply workers. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
