| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Youki Shiraishi <shiraishi(at)computer(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add comments for a postgres program in bootstrap mode |
| Date: | 2019-09-26 15:22:58 |
| Message-ID: | 13139.1569511378@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Youki Shiraishi <shiraishi(at)computer(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> * The main entry point for auxiliary processes, such as the bgwriter,
>> - * walwriter, walreceiver, bootstrapper and the shared memory checker code.
>> + * walwriter, walreceiver, postgres program in bootstrap mode and the
>> + * shared memory checker code.
>>
>> This change may not be necessary, because, bootstrapper is a good
>> short name for 'postgres program in bootstrap mode'. Also, this name
>> is similar in style to the names of other auxiliary processes.
> Thank you for reviewing my patch.
> My concern is that the word 'bootstrapper' is ambiguous.
> If the word is obvious to hackers, please use the v2 patch attached to
> this email.
A quick grep through the sources finds that "bootstrapper" is used
in exactly two places (here, and one comment in initdb.c). I don't
think it's accepted jargon at all, and would vote to get rid of it.
What I think *is* the usual phrasing is "bootstrap-mode backend"
or variants of that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-09-26 15:30:14 | Re: dropdb --force |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-26 15:12:51 | Re: Unstable select_parallel regression output in 12rc1 |