Re: Rename PqMsg_Progress to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 03:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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. */

Committed with that comment adjustment, thanks.

--
nathan