On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:12 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com>, 20 Tem 2023 Per, 05:41 tarihinde şunu
> yazdı:
>>
>> 7. InitializeLogRepWorker
>>
>> if (am_tablesync_worker())
>> ereport(LOG,
>> - (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table
>> \"%s\" has started",
>> + (errmsg("logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\", table
>> \"%s\" with relid %u has started",
>> MySubscription->name,
>> - get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid))));
>> + get_rel_name(MyLogicalRepWorker->relid),
>> + MyLogicalRepWorker->relid)));
>>
>> But this is certainly a tablesync worker so the message here should
>> say "logical replication table synchronization worker" like the HEAD
>> code used to do.
>>
>> It seems this mistake was introduced in patch v20-0001.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused here. Isn't it decided to use "logical replication worker"
> regardless of the worker's type [1]. That's why I made this change. If that's
> not the case here, I'll put it back.
>
I feel where the worker type is clear, it is better to use it unless
the same can lead to translation issues.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
