Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 03:20:12PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.

I don't think we need to worry too much about other kinds of workers in
this case. The message is already listed under a comment that says it's
for parallel workers. Presumably we'd add new macros for things that other
types of workers send.

--
nathan