| 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
| 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 |