| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress |
| Date: | 2026-09-10 19:50:20 |
| Message-ID: | 924900.1789069820@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:
>> I think the obvious way to resolve that
>> inconsistency is to duplicate those macros and give them the parallel
>> prefix, but I'm not sure that's a worthwhile endeavor. Those characters
>> have roughly the same meaning for parallel workers/leaders as they do
>> elsewhere, so there's no real gain in code readability.
> IMO, this is not necessary. I can't think of a good reason.
Agreed. I think the main problem with the way things stand is that
it looks like PqMsg_Progress might apply for regular clients, which
it doesn't.
Possibly it'd be appropriate to adjust the comments in protocol.h
to make things clearer. I think this might be enough:
-/* These are the codes sent by parallel workers to leader processes. */
+/* Additional codes sent by parallel workers to leader processes. */
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-09-10 20:06:39 | Re: Misplaced comment in snapbuild.c |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-09-10 19:40:51 | Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress |