On 13.07.23 06:59, Peter Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote:
On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
So, I don't think it is fair to say that these format strings are OK
for the existing HEAD code, but not OK for the patch code, when they
are both the same.
Agreed. Let's remove them all.
This is an open issue for PG16 translation. I propose the attached
patch to fix this. Mostly, this just reverts to the previous wordings.
(I don't think for these messages the difference between "apply worker"
and "parallel apply worker" is all that interesting to explode the
number of messages. AFAICT, the table sync worker case wasn't even
used, since callers always handled it separately.)
I thought the get_worker_name function was reachable by tablesync workers also.
Since ApplyWorkerMain is a common entry point for both leader apply
workers and tablesync workers, any logs in that code path could
potentially be from either kind of worker. At least, when the function
was first introduced (around patch v43-0001? [1]) it was also
replacing some tablesync logs.
I suppose we could just say "logical replication worker" in all cases.
That should be enough precision for the purpose of these messages.
