From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify some logical replication worker type checking |
Date: | 2023-08-02 02:50:32 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JViFS5-TL6hGwBz_V60UBnV1cnc_29GYDuBUndX=1jpQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 12:11 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-01, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > PSA a small patch making those above-suggested changes. The 'make
> > check' and TAP subscription tests are all passing OK.
>
> I think the code ends up more readable with this style of changes, so
> +1. I do wonder if these calls should appear in a proc_exit callback or
> some such instead, though.
>
But the call to
ApplyLauncherForgetWorkerStartTime()->logicalrep_launcher_attach_dshmem()
has some dynamic shared memory allocation/attach calls which I am not
sure is a good idea to do in proc_exit() callbacks. We may want to
evaluate whether moving the suggested checks to proc_exit or any other
callback is a better idea. What do you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-08-02 03:00:35 | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2023-08-02 02:40:04 | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |