Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>>Here is a patch further cleaning up dummy process startup and the
> >>>bootstrap code itself a little.
> >>Could we please call the "dummy" processes something else? Dummy
> >>seems a bit belittling for such important things like bgwriter and the
> >>startup process.
> >>
> >>How about worker or helper process?
> >
> >Well, sure, but the name was there before I patched it :-) This is
> >mostly a code issue though, not something that shows up at all at the
> >user level.
>
> Yeah. I thought now would be a good time to change since you're messing
> with the code anyway.
>
> I'd be happy with something like "system process" that carries the
> meaning of something that's internal and important. But "system process"
> makes me think of the operating system.
>
> Non-backend process would be a nice contrast to normal backend
> processes, but a negated word like that is awkward.
>
> Internal process?
Andrew's suggestion of "auxiliary process" sounds good to me ... do you
care enough to submit a patch to change all occurences of "dummy" in
that context? I grepped and there's enough unrelated uses of "dummy"
that discouraged me from doing it.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
