Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1++wkxxMjsPh-z2aKa9ZjNhKsjv0Tnw+TVX-hCBkDHusw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication (Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:12 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote: > > Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, 20 Tem 2023 Per, 05:41 tarihinde şunu yazdı: >> >> 7. InitializeLogRepWorker >> >> if (am_tablesync_worker()) >> ereport(LOG, >> - (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table >> \"%s\" has started", >> + (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table >> \"%s\" with relid %u has started", >> MySubscription->name, >> - get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid)))); >> + get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid), >> + MyLogicalRepWorker->relid))); >> >> But this is certainly a tablesync worker so the message here should >> say "logical replication table synchronization worker" like the HEAD >> code used to do. >> >> It seems this mistake was introduced in patch v20-0001. > > > I'm a bit confused here. Isn't it decided to use "logical replication worker" regardless of the worker's type [1]. That'swhy I made this change. If that's not the case here, I'll put it back. > I feel where the worker type is clear, it is better to use it unless the same can lead to translation issues. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: