Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers
Date
Msg-id CAAWbhmgHcxpNdSnAvciU+0j3Azf=g+UwMc+cbQsB1O-YZTcVQA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 7:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I agree with Robert's complaint that Parallel is far too generic
> > a term here.  Also, the fact that this data is currently in struct
> > Port seems like an artifact.
> >
> > Don't we have a term for the set of processes comprising a leader
> > plus parallel workers?  If we called that set FooGroup, then
> > something like FooGroupSharedInfo would be on-point.
>
> As far as I know, proc.h includes the term "group members", which
> includes the leader and its workers (see CLOG and lock part)?

lmgr/README also refers to "gangs of related processes" and "parallel
groups". So

- GroupSharedInfo
- ParallelGroupSharedInfo
- GangSharedInfo
- SharedLeaderInfo

?

--Jacob



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Geier
Date:
Subject: Re: Assertion failure with barriers in parallel hash join
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcon unconference / impact of block size on performance