MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHut+PttPSuP0yoZ=9zLDXKqTJ=d0bhxwKaEaNcaym1XqcvDEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACUCJcmnHj689oC5JyNRzEQUe53xbxuU_CQ4NmVdiazdNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUCJcmnHj689oC5JyNRzEQUe53xbxuU_CQ4NmVdiazdNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:41:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1KfDU_dPHs4SaLAEnd95EHTePv54TwOdDC0ayC0xOG4Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KfDU_dPHs4SaLAEnd95EHTePv54TwOdDC0ayC0xOG4Hg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 3:25=E2=80=AFPM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFAM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > PROBLEM:
> >
> > IMO, deducing the worker's type by examining multiple different field
> > values seems a dubious way to do it. This maybe was reasonable enough
> > when there were only 2 types, but as more get added it becomes
> > increasingly complicated.
>
> +1 for being more explicit in worker types.
>

+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);
 }


--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.