On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 7:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:50 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > * If you do the above then there won't be a need to change the > > > variable name is_parallel_apply_worker in logicalrep_worker_launch. > > > > > > > Done. > > > > I don't think the addition of two new macros isTablesyncWorker() and > isLeaderApplyWorker() adds much value, so removed those and ran > pgindent. I am planning to commit this patch early next week unless > you or others have any comments. >
Thanks for considering this patch fit for pushing. Actually, I recently found 2 more overlooked places in the launcher.c code which can benefit from using the isTablesyncWorker(w) macro that was removed in patch v6-0001. I have posted another v7. (v7-0001 is identical to v6-0001). The v7-0002 patch has the isTablesyncWorker changes. I think wherever possible it is better to check the worker-type via macro instead of deducing it by fields like 'relid', and patch v7-0002 makes the code more consistent with other nearby isParallelApplyWorker checks in launcher.c ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v7-0002-Add-isTablesyncWorker.patch
Description: Binary data
v7-0001-Simplify-determining-logical-replication-worker-t.patch
Description: Binary data
