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