Re: Fix data checksum progress reporting docs

> On 10 Jul 2026, at 03:13, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 5:28 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> You are absolutely right.  And when looking at it I think we can simplify the
>> entry a bit as well to make it fit the style of the page better.  What do you
>> think about the attached?
> 
> Thanks for the patch! I like the overall approach.
> I just have a few minor comments.
> 
> +     A set of
> +     <glossterm linkend="glossary-background-worker">background
> worker</glossterm>
> +     processes which can enable, or disable, data checksums in a
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to remove the two commas here?

Fixed.

> +     running cluster.  The process which coordinates the work is known as the
> +     <firstterm>data checksums worker launcher</firstterm> and the process
> 
> Only the glossary seems to use the term "data checksums worker launcher".
> Wouldn't "data checksums launcher" (i.e., dropping "worker") be a better name?

Fixed.

> +     <firstterm>data checksums worker launcher</firstterm> and the process
> +     which operate on the individual databases is known as the
> +     <firstterm>data checksums worker</firstterm>.
> 
> Shouldn't "the process which operate" be either "the process which operates"
> or "the processes which operate"? Since multiple data checksums workers
> can run, the latter seems more appropriate.

Currently the processing is limited to a single worker, so I think the proposed
wording is more appropriate.  Expanding the code to handle multiple parallel
workers was left as a future enhancement (it will perhaps require better IO
throttling etc).

> While looking at the related code, I also found that
> B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER and B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER
> were added as BackendType entries in miscadmin.h. Since those entries appear
> under the comment for auxiliary processes, it could give the impression that
> the data checksums launcher and workers are auxiliary processes. To avoid
> that confusion, would it make sense to add a comment such as:
> 
>    -------------------------
>            B_WAL_WRITER,
> 
>    +       /*
>    +        * XXXXXXXXXX
>    +        */
>            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER,
>            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER,
>    -------------------------

Fair point, see attached.

> BTW, I'm also wondering why dedicated BackendType entries were added for
> the data checksums processes, while other background workers don't have
> their own BackendType values.

They are need for the pgstat system though aren't they, or am I missing
something?

--
Daniel Gustafsson