MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHGQGwHJHJYAkYZBi3_O13np-Rou9UL637=hB3Y_-qdCgcZn-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <E5A7D80B-A691-4DDE-9E90-19CC0ED0BFF5@yesql.se>
 <CAHGQGwEv-C9ia+rBYyePzO8F=5FVvS412ZqcOupazuOb5RafNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D4EF043-0DA9-4DF1-A28C-E3598167D1D2@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: <8D4EF043-0DA9-4DF1-A28C-E3598167D1D2@yesql.se>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:13:21 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwFsBjQs2fv7b72hxzGV_fJMh6LAg4E83pNfDOu1jVgWCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fix data checksum progress reporting docs
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: "pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwFsBjQs2fv7b72hxzGV_fJMh6LAg4E83pNfDOu1jVgWCA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 5:28=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> =
wrote:
> You are absolutely right.  And when looking at it I think we can simplify=
 the
> entry a bit as well to make it fit the style of the page better.  What do=
 you
> think about the attached?

Thanks for the patch! I like the overall approach.
I just have a few minor comments.

+     A set of
+     <glossterm linkend=3D"glossary-background-worker">background
worker</glossterm>
+     processes which can enable, or disable, data checksums in a

Wouldn't it be better to remove the two commas here?


+     running cluster.  The process which coordinates the work is known as =
the
+     <firstterm>data checksums worker launcher</firstterm> and the process

Only the glossary seems to use the term "data checksums worker launcher".
Wouldn't "data checksums launcher" (i.e., dropping "worker") be a better na=
me?


+     <firstterm>data checksums worker launcher</firstterm> and the process
+     which operate on the individual databases is known as the
+     <firstterm>data checksums worker</firstterm>.

Shouldn't "the process which operate" be either "the process which operates=
"
or "the processes which operate"? Since multiple data checksums workers
can run, the latter seems more appropriate.


While looking at the related code, I also found that
B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER and B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER
were added as BackendType entries in miscadmin.h. Since those entries appea=
r
under the comment for auxiliary processes, it could give the impression tha=
t
the data checksums launcher and workers are auxiliary processes. To avoid
that confusion, would it make sense to add a comment such as:

    -------------------------
            B_WAL_WRITER,

    +       /*
    +        * XXXXXXXXXX
    +        */
            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER,
            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER,
    -------------------------


BTW, I'm also wondering why dedicated BackendType entries were added for
the data checksums processes, while other background workers don't have
their own BackendType values.

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao