Kirill Reshke <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 02:57, Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > While looking at this, I realized that "PqMsg_Progress" is the name of the > > 'P' message that was added for parallel index progress reporting. > > > > I missed [1] at the time, but if there is still a chance to rename it to > > "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress", that seems better, > > "PqMsg_Progress" does not really describe what it is, whereas > > "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress" makes it explicit that this is a > > parallel-worker-to-leader message. It also matches other places in the code > > that deal with parallel workers, such as "IsParallelWorker", so it is easier > > to find when looking through parallel-worker code. > > > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZpboPlg1v38vJhsD%40nathan > > > > -- > > Sami Imseih > > Amazon Web Services (AWS) > > > > 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. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
