On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 7:22 AM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, 26 May 2023 Cum, 10:30 tarihinde
> şunu yazdı:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:59 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I was mostly referring to the same as point 1 below about patch
> > 0001. I guess I just found the concept of mixing A) launching TSW (via
> > apply worker) with B) reassigning TSW to another relation (by the TSW
> > battling with its peers) to be a bit difficult to understand. I
> > thought most of the refactoring seemed to arise from choosing to do it
> > that way.
>
> No, the refactoring is not related to the way of assigning a new
> table. In fact, the patch did not include such refactoring a couple
> versions earlier [1] and was still assigning tables the same way. It
> was suggested here [2]. Then, I made the patch 0001 which includes
> some refactoring and only reuses the worker and nothing else. Also I
> find it more understandable this way, maybe it's a bit subjective.
>
> I feel that logical replication related files are getting more and
> more complex and hard to understand with each change. IMHO, even
> without reusing anything, those need some refactoring anyway. But for
> this patch, refactoring some places made it simpler to reuse workers
> and/or replication slots, regardless of how tables are assigned to
> TSW's.
If refactoring is wanted anyway (regardless of the chosen "reuse"
logic), then will it be better to split off a separate 0001 patch just
to get that part out of the way first?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia