Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LAxSFn+4v=kq7v7Q5ZKuDY=NJxBg35aRaXCp6TbvkOWw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The am_xxx functions are removed now in the v2-0001 patch. See [1].
>
> The replacement set of macros (the ones with no arg) are not strictly
> necessary, except I felt it would make the code unnecessarily verbose
> if we insist to pass MyLogicalRepWorker everywhere from the callers in
> worker.c / tablesync.c / applyparallelworker.c.
>

Agreed but having a dual set of macros is also not clean. Can we
provide only a unique set of inline functions instead?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplify some logical replication worker type checking
Next
From: Sultan Berentaev
Date:
Subject: Inquiry about Functionality Availability in PostgreSQL