On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since we will later consider applying non-streamed transactions in parallel, I
> > think "apply streaming worker" might not be very suitable. I think PostgreSQL
> > also has the worker "parallel worker", so for "apply parallel worker" and
> > "apply background worker", I feel that "apply background worker" will make the
> > relationship between workers more clear. ("[main] apply worker" and "apply
> > background worker")
> >
>
> But, on similar lines, we do have vacuumparallel.c for parallelizing
> index vacuum. I agree with Kuroda-San on this point that the currently
> proposed terminology doesn't sound to be very clear. The other options
> that come to my mind are "apply streaming transaction worker", "apply
> parallel worker" and file name could be applystreamworker.c,
> applyparallel.c, applyparallelworker.c, etc. I see the point why you
> are hesitant in calling it "apply parallel worker" but it is quite
> possible that even for non-streamed xacts, we will share quite some
> part of this code.
I think the "apply streaming transaction worker" is a good option
w.r.t. what we are currently doing but then in the future, if we want
to apply normal transactions in parallel then we will have to again
change the name. So I think "apply parallel worker" might look
better and the file name could be "applyparallelworker.c" or just
"parallelworker.c". Although "parallelworker.c" file name is a bit
generic but we already have worker.c so w.r.t that "parallelworker.c"
should just look fine. At least that is what I think.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com