| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactor pqformat.{c,h} and protocol.h |
| Date: | 2024-07-16 19:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TM9W-VYJjiZXZs25YngZkP=fwYSMOrS0LBOZ5hjSmNM6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> Thanks. The only thing that stands out to me is the name of the parallel
> leader/worker protocol message. In the original thread for protocol
> characters, some early versions of the patch called it a "parallel
> progress" message, but this new one just calls it PqMsg_Progress. I guess
> PqMsg_ParallelProgress might be a tad more descriptive and less likely to
> cause naming collisions with new frontend/backend messages, but I'm not
> tremendously worried about either of those things. Thoughts?
Personally I'm fine with either option.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2024-07-16 20:00:47 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-16 19:48:34 | Re: [PATCH] Refactor pqformat.{c,h} and protocol.h |