---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background
workers and parallel apply
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 8:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:29 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 3. pa_setup_dsm
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Set up a dynamic shared memory segment.
> > + *
> > + * We set up a control region that contains a fixed-size worker info
> > + * (ParallelApplyWorkerShared), a message queue, and an error queue.
> > + *
> > + * Returns true on success, false on failure.
> > + */
> > +static bool
> > +pa_setup_dsm(ParallelApplyWorkerInfo *winfo)
> >
> > IMO that's confusing to say "fixed-sized worker info" when it's
> > referring to the ParallelApplyWorkerShared structure and not the other
> > ParallelApplyWorkerInfo.
> >
> > Might be better to say:
> >
> > "a fixed-size worker info (ParallelApplyWorkerShared)" -> "a
> > fixed-size struct (ParallelApplyWorkerShared)"
> >
> > ~~~
> >
>
> I find the existing wording better than what you are proposing. We can
> remove the structure name if you think that is better but IMO, current
> wording is good.
>
Including the structure name was helpful, but "worker info" made me
wrongly think it was talking about ParallelApplyWorkerInfo (e.g.
"worker info" was too much like WorkerInfo). So any different way to
say "worker info" might avoid that confusion.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia