| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-06-04 02:36:10 |
| Message-ID: | YprFGkUqdwzfzvRQ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree with Robert's complaint that Parallel is far too generic
> a term here. Also, the fact that this data is currently in struct
> Port seems like an artifact.
>
> Don't we have a term for the set of processes comprising a leader
> plus parallel workers? If we called that set FooGroup, then
> something like FooGroupSharedInfo would be on-point.
As far as I know, proc.h includes the term "group members", which
includes the leader and its workers (see CLOG and lock part)?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-04 03:13:19 | Re: [v15 beta] pg_upgrade failed if earlier executed with -c switch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-03 20:58:08 | Re: Collation version tracking for macOS |