On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> That's fine by me. Should this be done (if there's no objection) in the
> same patch, or in another one?
I'd say "same patch".
>> I'd suggest renaming the "parallel" flag to BackgroundWorkerSlot to
>> "is_parallel_worker". Or, actually, what I think would be better is
>> to give it a name like worker_class, and then we can have
>> BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL and perhaps eventually
>> BGWORKER_CLASS_REPLICATION, etc.
> For now I just renamed "parallel" to "is_parallel_worker", since this is
> straightforward. For a new "worker_class", I guess we'd need a new enum
> stored in BackgroundWorker struct instead of the
> BGWORKER_IS_PARALLEL_WORKER flag, and store it in the
> BackgroundWorkerSlot. Should I do that instead?
I suggest that we make it part of bgw_flags, but use a bitmask for it,
#define BGWORKER_CLASS_MASK 0x00f0
#define BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL 0x0010
/* add additional bgworker classes here */
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: