On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 7:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:50 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * If you do the above then there won't be a need to change the
> > > variable name is_parallel_apply_worker in logicalrep_worker_launch.
> > >
> >
> > Done.
> >
>
> I don't think the addition of two new macros isTablesyncWorker() and
> isLeaderApplyWorker() adds much value, so removed those and ran
> pgindent. I am planning to commit this patch early next week unless
> you or others have any comments.
>
Thanks for considering this patch fit for pushing.
Actually, I recently found 2 more overlooked places in the launcher.c
code which can benefit from using the isTablesyncWorker(w) macro that
was removed in patch v6-0001.
I have posted another v7. (v7-0001 is identical to v6-0001). The
v7-0002 patch has the isTablesyncWorker changes. I think wherever
possible it is better to check the worker-type via macro instead of
deducing it by fields like 'relid', and patch v7-0002 makes the code
more consistent with other nearby isParallelApplyWorker checks in
launcher.c
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia