RE: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
От | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB571661AA5C700358460863C6941BA@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.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 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: