On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 1:54 AM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> PFA updated patches. Rebased 0003 with minor changes. Addressed Peter's
> reviews for 0001 and 0002 with some small comments below.
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com>, 10 Tem 2023 Pzt, 10:09 tarihinde şunu
> yazdı:
>>
>> 6. LogicalRepApplyLoop
>>
>> + /*
>> + * apply_dispatch() may have gone into apply_handle_commit()
>> + * which can call process_syncing_tables_for_sync.
>> + *
>> + * process_syncing_tables_for_sync decides whether the sync of
>> + * the current table is completed. If it is completed,
>> + * streaming must be already ended. So, we can break the loop.
>> + */
>> + if (MyLogicalRepWorker->is_sync_completed)
>> + {
>> + endofstream = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>>
>> and
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If is_sync_completed is true, this means that the tablesync
>> + * worker is done with synchronization. Streaming has already been
>> + * ended by process_syncing_tables_for_sync. We should move to the
>> + * next table if needed, or exit.
>> + */
>> + if (MyLogicalRepWorker->is_sync_completed)
>> + endofstream = true;
>>
>> ~
>>
>> Instead of those code fragments above assigning 'endofstream' as a
>> side-effect, would it be the same (but tidier) to just modify the
>> other "breaking" condition below:
>>
>> BEFORE:
>> /* Check if we need to exit the streaming loop. */
>> if (endofstream)
>> break;
>>
>> AFTER:
>> /* Check if we need to exit the streaming loop. */
>> if (endofstream || MyLogicalRepWorker->is_sync_completed)
>> break;
>
>
> First place you mentioned also breaks the infinite loop. Such an if statement
> is needed there with or without endofstream assignment.
>
> I think if there is a flag to break a loop, using that flag to indicate that
> we should exit the loop seems more appropriate to me. I see that it would be
> a bit tidier without endofstream = true lines, but I feel like it would also
> be less readable.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion though. I'm just keeping them as they are for
> now, but I can change them if you disagree.
>
I felt it was slightly sneaky to re-use the existing variable as a
convenient way to do what you want. But, I don’t feel strongly enough
on this point to debate it -- maybe see later if others have an
opinion about this.
>>
>>
>> 10b.
>> All the other tablesync-related fields of this struct are named as
>> relXXX, so I wonder if is better for this to follow the same pattern.
>> e.g. 'relsync_completed'
>
>
> Aren't those start with rel because they're related to the relation that the
> tablesync worker is syncing? is_sync_completed is not a relation specific
> field. I'm okay with changing the name but feel like relsync_completed would
> be misleading.
My reading of the code is slightly different: Only these fields have
the prefix ‘rel’ and they are all grouped under the comment “/* Used
for initial table synchronization. */” because AFAIK only these fields
are TWS specific (not used for other kinds of workers).
Since this new flag field is also TWS-specific, therefore IMO it
should follow the same consistent name pattern. But, if you are
unconvinced, maybe see later if others have an opinion about it.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
