On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 9:30 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Since we will later consider applying non-streamed transactions in parallel, I
> > > think "apply streaming worker" might not be very suitable. I think PostgreSQL
> > > also has the worker "parallel worker", so for "apply parallel worker" and
> > > "apply background worker", I feel that "apply background worker" will make the
> > > relationship between workers more clear. ("[main] apply worker" and "apply
> > > background worker")
> > >
> >
> > But, on similar lines, we do have vacuumparallel.c for parallelizing
> > index vacuum. I agree with Kuroda-San on this point that the currently
> > proposed terminology doesn't sound to be very clear. The other options
> > that come to my mind are "apply streaming transaction worker", "apply
> > parallel worker" and file name could be applystreamworker.c,
> > applyparallel.c, applyparallelworker.c, etc. I see the point why you
> > are hesitant in calling it "apply parallel worker" but it is quite
> > possible that even for non-streamed xacts, we will share quite some
> > part of this code.
>
> I think the "apply streaming transaction worker" is a good option
> w.r.t. what we are currently doing but then in the future, if we want
> to apply normal transactions in parallel then we will have to again
> change the name. So I think "apply parallel worker" might look
> better and the file name could be "applyparallelworker.c" or just
> "parallelworker.c". Although "parallelworker.c" file name is a bit
> generic but we already have worker.c so w.r.t that "parallelworker.c"
> should just look fine.
>
Yeah based on that theory, we can go with parallelworker.c but my vote
is to go with applyparallelworker.c among the above as that is more
clear. I feel worker.c is already not a very good name where we are
doing the work related to apply, so it won't be advisable to go down
that path further.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
