Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-19T18:18:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote: > That's fine by me. Should this be done (if there's no objection) in the > same patch, or in another one? I'd say "same patch". >> I'd suggest renaming the "parallel" flag to BackgroundWorkerSlot to >> "is_parallel_worker". Or, actually, what I think would be better is >> to give it a name like worker_class, and then we can have >> BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL and perhaps eventually >> BGWORKER_CLASS_REPLICATION, etc. > > For now I just renamed "parallel" to "is_parallel_worker", since this is > straightforward. For a new "worker_class", I guess we'd need a new enum > stored in BackgroundWorker struct instead of the > BGWORKER_IS_PARALLEL_WORKER flag, and store it in the > BackgroundWorkerSlot. Should I do that instead? I suggest that we make it part of bgw_flags, but use a bitmask for it, like this: #define BGWORKER_CLASS_MASK 0x00f0 #define BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL 0x0010 /* add additional bgworker classes here */ -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company