Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers

On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 20:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The current patch already handles NULL with a byte of overhead; is
> > there any advantage to using noError? (It might make things messier
> > once a second member gets added to the struct.) My concern was directed
> > at the GUC proposal.
> 
> FWIW, I am a bit concerned by this approach because it feels
> inconsistent with any other conditional fields passed down from the
> parallel leader to its workers.  And if we need to add more fields to 
> ParallelProcInfo in the future, it will be cleaner to use different
> TOC keys to pass down different fields anyway, no?

I assumed that we would follow the existing model of "(de)serialize a
whole struct", rather than pulling it apart into many separate keys. If
it got too complicated then we could consider introducing a
SerializedParallelProcInfo struct like some of the other functions do.
Maybe that wouldn't work so well if many of the fields are strings?

Is there a significant cost to changing this later, if one approach
turns out to be wrong?

--Jacob