On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:41 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ pg_stat_get_subscription(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) worker_pid = worker.proc->pid; values[0] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.subid); - if (OidIsValid(worker.relid)) + if (isTablesyncWorker(&worker)) values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.relid); I don't see this as a good fit for using isTablesyncWorker(). If we were returning worker_type then using it would be okay. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
