On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 7:36 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I agree with Robert's complaint that Parallel is far too generic > > a term here. Also, the fact that this data is currently in struct > > Port seems like an artifact. > > > > Don't we have a term for the set of processes comprising a leader > > plus parallel workers? If we called that set FooGroup, then > > something like FooGroupSharedInfo would be on-point. > > As far as I know, proc.h includes the term "group members", which > includes the leader and its workers (see CLOG and lock part)?
lmgr/README also refers to "gangs of related processes" and "parallel groups". So - GroupSharedInfo - ParallelGroupSharedInfo - GangSharedInfo - SharedLeaderInfo ? --Jacob
