Re: [PATCH] Refactor pqformat.{c,h} and protocol.h

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 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 21:38:06
Message-ID: ZpboPlg1v38vJhsD@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:58:37PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> 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.

Alright. Well, I guess I'll flip a coin tomorrow unless someone else
chimes in with an opinion.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2024-07-16 22:01:10 Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-07-16 21:36:15 Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences