On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:09 PM kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> ~~~
> 10. worker.c - apply_handle_stream_start
>
> ```
> + *
> + * XXX We can avoid sending pair of the START/STOP messages to the parallel
> + * worker because unlike apply worker it will process only one
> + * transaction-at-a-time. However, it is not clear whether that is worth the
> + * effort because it is sent after logical_decoding_work_mem changes.
> ```
>
> I can understand that START message is not needed, but is STOP really removable? If leader does not send STOP to its
child,does it lose a chance to change the worker-state to IDLE_IN_TRANSACTION?
>
I think if we want we can set that state before we went to sleep in
parallel apply worker. So, I guess ideally we don't need both of these
messages but for now, it is fine as mentioned in the comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
