Re: Consistent coding for the naming of LR workers

On 13.07.23 06:59, Peter Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
>>> entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
>>>
>>>> So, I don't think it is fair to say that these format strings are OK
>>>> for the existing HEAD code, but not OK for the patch code, when they
>>>> are both the same.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Let's remove them all.
>>
>> This is an open issue for PG16 translation. I propose the attached
>> patch to fix this. Mostly, this just reverts to the previous wordings.
>> (I don't think for these messages the difference between "apply worker"
>> and "parallel apply worker" is all that interesting to explode the
>> number of messages. AFAICT, the table sync worker case wasn't even
>> used, since callers always handled it separately.)
>
> I thought the get_worker_name function was reachable by tablesync workers also.
>
> Since ApplyWorkerMain is a common entry point for both leader apply
> workers and tablesync workers, any logs in that code path could
> potentially be from either kind of worker. At least, when the function
> was first introduced (around patch v43-0001? [1]) it was also
> replacing some tablesync logs.

I suppose we could just say "logical replication worker" in all cases.
That should be enough precision for the purpose of these messages.