Hi,
Thanks for the feedback!
On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 9:30 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 06:35:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Sami Imseih <samimseih.pg@gmail.com> writes:
> >> While looking at this, I realized that "PqMsg_Progress" is the name of the
> >> 'P' message that was added for parallel index progress reporting.
> >
> >> I missed [1] at the time, but if there is still a chance to rename it to
> >> "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress", that seems better,
> >> "PqMsg_Progress" does not really describe what it is, whereas
> >> "PqMsg_ParallelWorkerProgress" makes it explicit that this is a
> >> parallel-worker-to-leader message. It also matches other places in the code
> >> that deal with parallel workers, such as "IsParallelWorker", so it is easier
> >> to find when looking through parallel-worker code.
> >
> > Yeah, "PqMsg_Progress" seems unduly generic. I don't think we should
> > rename it in the back branches, but doing so in master looks like
> > it'd be a small-footprint change.
>
> All of the options I've seen listed in this thread so far involve changing
> the part after the PqMsg_ prefix, but given we now have PqReplMsg_ and
> PqBackupMsg_, I'm thinking it'd be better to give parallel worker messages
> their own prefix. That seems to act as a sort of class or namespace for
> the message. Maybe something like PqParallelMsg_Progress would work here.
I think PqParallelMsg_Progress makes sense. The attached does this.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
