On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 03:20:12PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > Kirill Reshke <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, that's kind of bikeshedding for me to start with. But if we do, >> maybe a better option will be to describe what this exactly does, not >> who sends it. Like PgMsg_StatProgressReport or something. Does it >> sound? > > My objection to PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress is that other kinds of workers > might use it too, so PqMsg_WorkerProgress would make more sense. Anyway, your > suggestion sounds good to me as well because the existing message types do not > (except for PqMsg_BackendKeyData) use the name to indicate the sender.
I don't think we need to worry too much about other kinds of workers in this case. The message is already listed under a comment that says it's for parallel workers. Presumably we'd add new macros for things that other types of workers send. -- nathan
