On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:41 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 7:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:50 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * If you do the above then there won't be a need to change the
> > > > variable name is_parallel_apply_worker in logicalrep_worker_launch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Done.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think the addition of two new macros isTablesyncWorker() and
> > isLeaderApplyWorker() adds much value, so removed those and ran
> > pgindent. I am planning to commit this patch early next week unless
> > you or others have any comments.
> >
>
> Thanks for considering this patch fit for pushing.
>
> Actually, I recently found 2 more overlooked places in the launcher.c
> code which can benefit from using the isTablesyncWorker(w) macro that
> was removed in patch v6-0001.
>
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ pg_stat_get_subscription(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
worker_pid = worker.proc->pid;
values[0] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.subid);
- if (OidIsValid(worker.relid))
+ if (isTablesyncWorker(&worker))
values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(worker.relid);
I don't see this as a good fit for using isTablesyncWorker(). If we
were returning worker_type then using it would be okay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
