Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:39:51 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Cc: pavel.stehule@gmail.com, aleksander@timescale.com,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Wrong usage of pqMsg_Close message code?
Message-ID: <ZO2gx/W5bs/HpcBt@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAFj8pRBKa2ey+Nm_drj_5Fk-3_zBP7uezP2OrQT1pHeBO7m=6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230829.061200.192005411012654565.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>
 <ZO0lcXlwln/Ir09S@paquier.xyz>
 <20230829.100424.623781851282219189.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="e9l222KDFZWXBInp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230829.100424.623781851282219189.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZO2gx/W5bs/HpcBt%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--e9l222KDFZWXBInp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:04:24AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Yeah, both of you are right here.  Anyway, it seems to me that there
>> is a bit more going on in protocol.h.  I have noticed two more things
>> that are incorrect:
>> - HandleParallelMessage is missing a message for 'P', but I think that
>> we should have a code for it as well as part of the parallel query
>> protocol.
>=20
> I did not know this. Why is this not explained in the frontend/backend
> protocol document?

Hmm.  Thinking more about it, I am actually not sure that we need to
do that in this case, so perhaps things are OK as they stand for this
one.

>> - PqMsg_Terminate can be sent by the frontend *and* the backend, see
>> fe-connect.c and parallel.c.  However, protocol.h documents it as a
>> frontend-only code.
>=20
> I do not blame protocol.h because our frontend/backend protocol
> document also stats that it's a frontend only message. Someone who
> started to use 'X' in backend should have added that in the
> documentation.

Actually, this may be OK as well as it stands.  One can also say that
the parallel processing is out of this scope, being used only
internally.  I cannot keep wondering whether we should put more
efforts in documenting the parallel worker/leader protocol.  That's
internal to the backend and out of the scope of this thread, still..
--
Michael

--e9l222KDFZWXBInp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=r6tl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--e9l222KDFZWXBInp--