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

From Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
Subject RE: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
Date
Msg-id OS0PR01MB571661AA5C700358460863C6941BA@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.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 Friday, August 18, 2023 11:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:08 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The main patch for adding the worker type enum has been pushed [1].
> >
> > Here is the remaining (rebased) patch for changing some previous
> > cascading if/else to switch on the LogicalRepWorkerType enum instead.
> >
> 
> I see this as being useful if we plan to add more worker types. Does anyone else
> see this remaining patch as an improvement?

+1

I have one comment for the new error message.

+        case WORKERTYPE_UNKNOWN:
+            ereport(ERROR, errmsg_internal("should_apply_changes_for_rel: Unknown worker type"));

I think reporting an ERROR in this case is fine. However, I would suggest
refraining from mentioning the function name in the error message, as
recommended in the error style document [1]. Also, it appears we could use
elog() here.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/error-style-guide.html

Best Regards,
Hou zj

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Bagga, Rishu"
Date:
Subject: Re: SLRUs in the main buffer pool - Page Header definitions
Next
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove distprep