Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1++wkxxMjsPh-z2aKa9ZjNhKsjv0Tnw+TVX-hCBkDHusw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication  (Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:12 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, 20 Tem 2023 Per, 05:41 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>>
>> 7. InitializeLogRepWorker
>>
>>   if (am_tablesync_worker())
>>   ereport(LOG,
>> - (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table
>> \"%s\" has started",
>> + (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table
>> \"%s\" with relid %u has started",
>>   MySubscription->name,
>> - get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid))));
>> + get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid),
>> + MyLogicalRepWorker->relid)));
>>
>> But this is certainly a tablesync worker so the message here should
>> say "logical replication table synchronization worker" like the HEAD
>> code used to do.
>>
>> It seems this mistake was introduced in patch v20-0001.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused here. Isn't it decided to use "logical replication worker" regardless of the worker's type [1].
That'swhy I made this change. If that's not the case here, I'll put it back. 
>

I feel where the worker type is clear, it is better to use it unless
the same can lead to translation issues.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Extracting cross-version-upgrade knowledge from buildfarm client
Next
From: Melih Mutlu
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication