On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
> entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
>
>> So, I don't think it is fair to say that these format strings are OK
>> for the existing HEAD code, but not OK for the patch code, when they
>> are both the same.
>
> Agreed. Let's remove them all.
This is an open issue for PG16 translation. I propose the attached
patch to fix this. Mostly, this just reverts to the previous wordings.
(I don't think for these messages the difference between "apply worker"
and "parallel apply worker" is all that interesting to explode the
number of messages. AFAICT, the table sync worker case wasn't even
used, since callers always handled it separately.)