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

From Peter Smith
Subject Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
Date
Msg-id CAHut+PvsLw4xO=8sLqQO4a3zgJyJkyt0uVycbw_uyXDXr2m8Vw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1. BTW, do we need the below functions (am_tablesync_worker(),
> am_leader_apply_worker()) after this work?
> static inline bool
>  am_tablesync_worker(void)
>  {
> - return OidIsValid(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid);
> + return isTablesyncWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
>  }
>
>  static inline bool
>  am_leader_apply_worker(void)
>  {
> - return (!am_tablesync_worker() &&
> - !isParallelApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker));
> + return isLeaderApplyWorker(MyLogicalRepWorker);
>  }
>

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.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Documentation of psql's \df no longer matches reality
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplify some logical replication worker type checking