On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yeah, I also wasn't very sure about that one, except it seems
analogous to the existing code immediately below it, where you could
say the same thing:
if (isParallelApplyWorker(&worker))
values[3] = Int32GetDatum(worker.leader_pid);
Whatever you think is best for that one is fine by me.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
