| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-06-03 14:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 200677.1654265052@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> ParallelPortInfo sounds kind of right for the job to me in this set of
> proposals, as the data is from the Port, and that's some information
> shared between all the parallel workers and the leader.
I agree with Robert's complaint that Parallel is far too generic
a term here. Also, the fact that this data is currently in struct
Port seems like an artifact.
Don't we have a term for the set of processes comprising a leader
plus parallel workers? If we called that set FooGroup, then
something like FooGroupSharedInfo would be on-point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-06-03 14:39:21 | Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-06-03 13:53:54 | Re: [v15 beta] pg_upgrade failed if earlier executed with -c switch |