Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress

Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 02:57, Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > While looking at this, I realized that "PqMsg_Progress" is the name of the
> > 'P' message that was added for parallel index progress reporting.
> >
> > I missed [1] at the time, but if there is still a chance to rename it to
> > "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress", that seems better,
> > "PqMsg_Progress" does not really describe what it is, whereas
> > "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress" makes it explicit that this is a
> > parallel-worker-to-leader message. It also matches other places in the code
> > that deal with parallel workers, such as "IsParallelWorker", so it is easier
> > to find when looking through parallel-worker code.
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZpboPlg1v38vJhsD%40nathan
> >
> > --
> > Sami Imseih
> > Amazon Web Services (AWS)
> >
>
> Well, that's kind of bikeshedding for me to start with. But if we do,
> maybe a better option will be to describe what this exactly does, not
> who sends it. Like PgMsg_StatProgressReport or something. Does it
> sound?

My objection to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress is that other kinds of workers
might use it too, so PqMsg_WorkerProgress would make more sense. Anyway, your
suggestion sounds good to me as well because the existing message types do not
(except for PqMsg_BackendKeyData) use the name to indicate the sender.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com