Обсуждение: Fix a comment in worker.c

Hi,

While reading the code, I realized that the second sentence of the
following comment in worker.c is not correct:

   /*
    * Exit if the subscription was disabled. This normally should not happen
    * as the worker gets killed during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... DISABLE.
    */
    if (!newsub->enabled)
    {
        ereport(LOG,
                (errmsg("logical replication apply worker for
subscription \"%s\" will "
                        "stop because the subscription was disabled",
                        MySubscription->name)));

        proc_exit(0);
    }

IIUC the apply worker normally exits here when the subscription is
disabled since we don't stop the apply worker during ALTER
SUBSCRIPTION DISABLE. I've attached a patch to remove it.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While reading the code, I realized that the second sentence of the
> following comment in worker.c is not correct:
>
>    /*
>     * Exit if the subscription was disabled. This normally should not happen
>     * as the worker gets killed during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... DISABLE.
>     */
>     if (!newsub->enabled)
>     {
>         ereport(LOG,
>                 (errmsg("logical replication apply worker for
> subscription \"%s\" will "
>                         "stop because the subscription was disabled",
>                         MySubscription->name)));
>
>         proc_exit(0);
>     }
>
> IIUC the apply worker normally exits here when the subscription is
> disabled since we don't stop the apply worker during ALTER
> SUBSCRIPTION DISABLE. I've attached a patch to remove it.
>

Yes, I also have the same understanding. Your patch LGTM. I'll push
this unless someone thinks otherwise.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > While reading the code, I realized that the second sentence of the
> > following comment in worker.c is not correct:
> >
> >    /*
> >     * Exit if the subscription was disabled. This normally should not happen
> >     * as the worker gets killed during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... DISABLE.
> >     */
> >     if (!newsub->enabled)
> >     {
> >         ereport(LOG,
> >                 (errmsg("logical replication apply worker for
> > subscription \"%s\" will "
> >                         "stop because the subscription was disabled",
> >                         MySubscription->name)));
> >
> >         proc_exit(0);
> >     }
> >
> > IIUC the apply worker normally exits here when the subscription is
> > disabled since we don't stop the apply worker during ALTER
> > SUBSCRIPTION DISABLE. I've attached a patch to remove it.
> >
>
> Yes, I also have the same understanding. Your patch LGTM. I'll push
> this unless someone thinks otherwise.
>

Pushed.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > While reading the code, I realized that the second sentence of the
> > > following comment in worker.c is not correct:
> > >
> > >    /*
> > >     * Exit if the subscription was disabled. This normally should not happen
> > >     * as the worker gets killed during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... DISABLE.
> > >     */
> > >     if (!newsub->enabled)
> > >     {
> > >         ereport(LOG,
> > >                 (errmsg("logical replication apply worker for
> > > subscription \"%s\" will "
> > >                         "stop because the subscription was disabled",
> > >                         MySubscription->name)));
> > >
> > >         proc_exit(0);
> > >     }
> > >
> > > IIUC the apply worker normally exits here when the subscription is
> > > disabled since we don't stop the apply worker during ALTER
> > > SUBSCRIPTION DISABLE. I've attached a patch to remove it.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I also have the same understanding. Your patch LGTM. I'll push
> > this unless someone thinks otherwise.
> >
>
> Pushed.

Thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/