Horton

Re: Adding a LogicalRepWorker type field

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-08-02T03:00:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Agreed but having a dual set of macros is also not clean. Can we
provide only a unique set of inline functions instead?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Commits

  1. Simplify the logical worker type checks by using the switch on worker type.

  2. Simplify determining logical replication worker types.