Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
От | Peter Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHut+PvsLw4xO=8sLqQO4a3zgJyJkyt0uVycbw_uyXDXr2m8Vw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: