On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 5:36 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:34 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 08:14:23AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:01:01AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote: > > >> One question -- the patch comment still says "Bumps catversion.", but > > >> catversion.h change is missing from the v9 patch? > > > > > > Yeah, previous patches did that, but it is no big deal. My take is > > > that it is a good practice to never do a catversion bump in posted > > > patches, and that it is equally a good practice from Nathan to be > > > reminded about that with the addition of a note in the commit message > > > of the patch posted. > > > > Right, I'll take care of it before committing. I'm trying to make sure I > > don't forget. :) > > OK, all good. > > ~~~ > > This is a bit of a late entry, but looking at the PG DOCS, I felt it > might be simpler if we don't always refer to every other worker type > when explaining NULLs. The descriptions are already bigger than they > need to be, and if more types ever get added they will keep growing. > > ~ > > BEFORE > leader_pid integer > 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 a table > synchronization worker > > SUGGESTION > leader_pid integer > Process ID of the leader apply worker; NULL if this process is not a > parallel apply worker > > ~ > > BEFORE > relid oid > OID of the relation that the worker is synchronizing; NULL for the > leader apply worker and parallel apply workers > > SUGGESTION > relid oid > OID of the relation being synchronized; NULL if this process is not a > table synchronization worker >
I find the current descriptions better than the proposed. But I am not opposed to your proposal if others are okay with it. Personally, I feel even if we want to change these descriptions, we can do it as a separate patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
