On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 9:10 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:55:10PM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:40 PM Amit Kapila > > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do we really need a new parameter in above structure? Can't we just use the > >> existing origin in the same structure? Please remember if this needs to be > >> backpatched then it may not be good idea to add new parameter in the > >> structure but apart from that having two members to represent similar > >> information doesn't seem advisable to me. I feel for backbranch we can > >> just use > >> PGOutputData->origin for comparison and for HEAD, we can remove origin > >> and just use a boolean to avoid any extra cost for comparisions for each > >> change. > > > > OK, I agree to remove the origin string on HEAD and we can add that back > > when we support other origin value. I also modified to use the string for > > comparison > > as suggested for back-branch. I will also test it locally to confirm it > > doesn't affect > > the perf. > > Err, actually, I am going to disagree here for the patch of HEAD. It > seems to me that there is zero need for pgoutput.h and we don't need > to show PGOutputData to the world. The structure is internal to > pgoutput.c and used only by its internal static routines. >
Do you disagree with the approach for the PG16 patch or HEAD? You mentioned HEAD but your argument sounds like you disagree with a different approach for PG16. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
