Here are some review comments for v22-0003
======
1. ApplicationNameForTablesync
+/*
+ * Determine the application_name for tablesync workers.
+ *
+ * Previously, the replication slot name was used as application_name. Since
+ * it's possible to reuse tablesync workers now, a tablesync worker can handle
+ * several different replication slots during its lifetime. Therefore, we
+ * cannot use the slot name as application_name anymore. Instead, the slot
+ * number of the tablesync worker is used as a part of the application_name.
+ *
+ * FIXME: if the tablesync worker starts to reuse the replication slot during
+ * synchronization, we should again use the replication slot name as
+ * application_name.
+ */
+static void
+ApplicationNameForTablesync(Oid suboid, int worker_slot,
+ char *application_name, Size szapp)
+{
+ snprintf(application_name, szapp, "pg_%u_sync_%i_" UINT64_FORMAT, suboid,
+ worker_slot, GetSystemIdentifier());
+}
1a.
The intent of the "FIXME" comment was not clear. Is this some existing
problem that needs addressing, or is this really more like just an
"XXX" warning/note for the future, in case the tablesync logic
changes?
~
1b.
Since this is a new function, should it be named according to the
convention for static functions?
e.g.
ApplicationNameForTablesync -> app_name_for_tablesync
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
