Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:40:51
Message-ID: CAN12+YL4U5_1tuoT_-wDNvSGhSnhErfMx_P00b5p1FZLqtjDQQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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.

--
Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-09-10 19:50:20 Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress
Previous Message Melanie Plageman 2026-09-10 19:25:38 Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)