On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:09 PM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > ~~~ > 10. worker.c - apply_handle_stream_start > > ``` > + * > + * XXX We can avoid sending pair of the START/STOP messages to the parallel > + * worker because unlike apply worker it will process only one > + * transaction-at-a-time. However, it is not clear whether that is worth the > + * effort because it is sent after logical_decoding_work_mem changes. > ``` > > I can understand that START message is not needed, but is STOP really > removable? If leader does not send STOP to its child, does it lose a chance > to change the worker-state to IDLE_IN_TRANSACTION? >
I think if we want we can set that state before we went to sleep in parallel apply worker. So, I guess ideally we don't need both of these messages but for now, it is fine as mentioned in the comments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
