From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 02:40:04 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PvsLw4xO=8sLqQO4a3zgJyJkyt0uVycbw_uyXDXr2m8Vw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> +1. BTW, do we need the below functions (am_tablesync_worker(),
> am_leader_apply_worker()) after this work?
> static inline bool
> am_tablesync_worker(void)
> {
> - return OidIsValid(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid);
> + return isTablesyncWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
> }
>
> static inline bool
> am_leader_apply_worker(void)
> {
> - return (!am_tablesync_worker() &&
> - !isParallelApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker));
> + return isLeaderApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
> }
>
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.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-08-02 02:50:32 | Re: Simplify some logical replication worker type checking |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-08-02 02:36:01 | Re: Documentation of psql's \df no longer matches reality |