Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on?

On 21/04/17 16:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/20/17 14:29, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> +        /* Find unused worker slot. */
>> +        if (!w->in_use)
>>          {
>> -            worker = &LogicalRepCtx->workers[slot];
>> -            break;
>> +            worker = w;
>> +            slot = i;
>> +        }
> 
> Doesn't this still need a break?  Otherwise it always picks the last slot.
> 

Yes it will pick the last slot, does that matter though, is the first
one better somehow?

We can't break because we also need to continue the counter (I think the
issue that the counter solves is probably just theoretical, but still).

Hmm actually, maybe the if (!w->in_use) should be if (worker == NULL &&
!w->in_use)?

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services