| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress |
| Date: | 2026-09-09 22:35:55 |
| Message-ID: | 847229.1788993355@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
Yeah, "PqMsg_Progress" seems unduly generic. I don't think we should
rename it in the back branches, but doing so in master looks like
it'd be a small-footprint change.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2026-09-09 23:16:07 | Re: pg_*_advice: tsv load failure, etc. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-09-09 22:25:55 | Re: pg_get_*_ddl() needs a redesign |