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?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
