On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:07 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > 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.
+1 Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
