Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>>Here is a patch further cleaning up dummy process startup and the > >>>bootstrap code itself a little. > >>Could we please call the "dummy" processes something else? Dummy > >>seems a bit belittling for such important things like bgwriter and the > >>startup process. > >> > >>How about worker or helper process? > > > >Well, sure, but the name was there before I patched it :-) This is > >mostly a code issue though, not something that shows up at all at the > >user level. > > Yeah. I thought now would be a good time to change since you're messing > with the code anyway. > > I'd be happy with something like "system process" that carries the > meaning of something that's internal and important. But "system process" > makes me think of the operating system. > > Non-backend process would be a nice contrast to normal backend > processes, but a negated word like that is awkward. > > Internal process?
Andrew's suggestion of "auxiliary process" sounds good to me ... do you care enough to submit a patch to change all occurences of "dummy" in that context? I grepped and there's enough unrelated uses of "dummy" that discouraged me from doing it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
