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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
