On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:37 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> On 2025/04/26 3:03, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I agree with these changes.
> >
> > I think that while the changes for (2) should be for v19, the changes
> > for (1) might be treated as a bug fix?
>
> Agreed. I've split the patch into two parts:
>
> 0001 is for (1) and is a bug fix that should be back-patched to v16,
> where parallel apply workers were introduced. Since it didn't apply
> cleanly to v16, I also created a separate patch specifically for v16.
>
The situation for parallel_apply workers is not as bad as for
tablesync workers because even if the worker for parallel apply is not
available, the apply worker will apply the changes by itself. OTOH, if
the tablesync worker is not available, the tablesync will be pending
till the time a worker for the same is not available. So, I am not
sure if this is a clear cut bug which requires a fix in backbranches.
Additionally, shall we try to reproduce this case for parallel apply workers?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
