| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
| Date: | 2023-08-02 03:00:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LAxSFn+4v=kq7v7Q5ZKuDY=NJxBg35aRaXCp6TbvkOWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The am_xxx functions are removed now in the v2-0001 patch. See [1].
>
> The replacement set of macros (the ones with no arg) are not strictly
> necessary, except I felt it would make the code unnecessarily verbose
> if we insist to pass MyLogicalRepWorker everywhere from the callers in
> worker.c / tablesync.c / applyparallelworker.c.
>
Agreed but having a dual set of macros is also not clean. Can we
provide only a unique set of inline functions instead?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sultan Berentaev | 2023-08-02 03:10:51 | Inquiry about Functionality Availability in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-08-02 02:50:32 | Re: Simplify some logical replication worker type checking |