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