Thread: further bootstrap cleanup

[reposting with gzipped patch]

Here is a patch further cleaning up dummy process startup and the
bootstrap code itself a little.

I've tested it manually giving erroneous input and it behaves in the
same ways as the original.  Of course, it still manages to bootstrap
normally and passes regression tests.

This patches removes a BOOTSTRAP_INCLUDE symbol from tcopprot.h, since
it seems to be useless.  It is about trying to avoid getting prototypes
for functions not needed in bootstrap, presumably because at some point
the bootstrap.c file did not have enough includes to be able to compile
those definitions cleanly, or maybe because it had conflicting
definitions.  But it now works without that.

I also took the liberty of renaming "xlog operation" into "dummy process
type", since that's what really the things are.  I assume it was named
"xlog operation" back when the xlog code was written with the idea of
extending it into different xlog ops.  But we haven't had any.

I think this is as far as I'll go with cleaning up this code in this
round.  Task for some other janitor ...

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

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?

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

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?
>

"auxiliary" ?

cheers

andrew

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.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

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

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.