On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > 3.
> >
> > <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
> > + <structfield>leader_pid</structfield> <type>integer</type>
> > + </para>
> > + <para>
> > + Process ID of the leader apply worker if this process is a parallel
> > + apply worker; NULL if this process is a leader apply worker or does not
> > + participate in parallel apply, or a synchronization worker
> > + </para></entry>
> >
> > I felt this change is giving too many details and ended up just
> > muddying the water.
> >
>
> I see that we give a similar description for other parameters as well.
> For example leader_pid in pg_stat_activity,
>
BTW, shouldn't we update leader_pid column in pg_stat_activity as well
to display apply leader PID for parallel apply workers? It will
currently display for other parallel operations like a parallel
vacuum, so I don't see a reason to not do the same for parallel apply
workers.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.