On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 03:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. */
Committed with that comment adjustment, thanks. -- nathan
