Sami Imseih <[email protected]> writes:
>> I think the obvious way to resolve that
>> inconsistency is to duplicate those macros and give them the parallel
>> prefix, but I'm not sure that's a worthwhile endeavor. Those characters
>> have roughly the same meaning for parallel workers/leaders as they do
>> elsewhere, so there's no real gain in code readability.
> IMO, this is not necessary. I can't think of a good reason.
Agreed. I think the main problem with the way things stand is that
it looks like PqMsg_Progress might apply for regular clients, which
it doesn't.
Possibly it'd be appropriate to adjust the comments in protocol.h
to make things clearer. I think this might be enough:
-/* These are the codes sent by parallel workers to leader processes. */
+/* Additional codes sent by parallel workers to leader processes. */
regards, tom lane
