On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 06:09:48PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think there is a merit in keeping the worker type as 'sync' or
> 'synchronization' because these would be used in future for syncing
> other objects like sequences. One more thing that slightly looks odd
> is the 'leader apply' type of worker, won't this be confusing when
> there is no parallel apply worker in the system? In this regard,
> probably existing documentation could also be improved.
These are good points. I went ahead and adjusted the patch back to using
"apply" for [leader] apply workers and to using "synchronization" for
synchronization workers. I also adjusted a couple of the error messages
that Michael pointed out to say "synchronization worker" instead of "table
synchronization worker" or "tablesync worker".
This still leaves the possibility for confusion with the documentation's
use of "leader apply worker", but I haven't touched that for now.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
