> > It seems cleaner to introduce a separate message for this case, maybe > > "PqMsg_ParallelAborted", and keep the existing > > "ERROR: lost connection to parallel worker" message. > > I'm not sure this is worth adjusting the FE/BE protocol. I'd prefer regular > ERROR message (PqMsg_ErrorResponse), but only in some minimalistic form. The > worker would only send the message, w/o doing any error handling itself.
Perhaps PqMsg_ErrorResponse could work, although I am not clear what a minimalistic form means here. I was thinking of PqMsg_ParallelAborted because we have precedent already with PqMsg_Progress which was introduced in f1889729dd3a as the 'P' message for parallel index progress reported, but later converted to a macro in a99cc6c6b4b. (I think it was wrong to name it PqMsg_Progress, but that's besides the point here). -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Service (AWS)
