Hi, > Thanks. The only thing that stands out to me is the name of the parallel > leader/worker protocol message. In the original thread for protocol > characters, some early versions of the patch called it a "parallel > progress" message, but this new one just calls it PqMsg_Progress. I guess > PqMsg_ParallelProgress might be a tad more descriptive and less likely to > cause naming collisions with new frontend/backend messages, but I'm not > tremendously worried about either of those things. Thoughts?
Personally I'm fine with either option. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
