| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2022-06-06 15:44:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAAWbhmgHcxpNdSnAvciU+0j3Azf=g+UwMc+cbQsB1O-YZTcVQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 7:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.
>
> As far as I know, proc.h includes the term "group members", which
> includes the leader and its workers (see CLOG and lock part)?
lmgr/README also refers to "gangs of related processes" and "parallel
groups". So
- GroupSharedInfo
- ParallelGroupSharedInfo
- GangSharedInfo
- SharedLeaderInfo
?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-06-06 15:52:46 | Re: pgcon unconference / impact of block size on performance |
| Previous Message | David Geier | 2022-06-06 15:01:23 | Re: Assertion failure with barriers in parallel hash join |