On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:07 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 13.07.23 06:59, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@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