| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using defines for protocol characters |
| Date: | 2023-08-09 16:34:08 |
| Message-ID: | 110573.1691598848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 09:19, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>> 3. IMO, the names of the protocol messages in protocol.sgml are
>> canonical. Your patch appends "Request" and "Response" in cases where
>> that is not part of the actual name. Also, some messages are documented
>> to go both ways, so this separation doesn't make sense strictly
>> speaking. Please use the names as in protocol.sgml without augmenting
>> them.
> I've changed this a number of times. I do not mind changing it again, but
> can we reach a consensus ?
I agree with Peter: let's use the names in the protocol document
with a single prefix. I've got mixed feelings about whether that prefix
should have an underscore, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2023-08-09 16:44:42 | Re: Using defines for protocol characters |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2023-08-09 16:32:24 | Re: [RFC] Clang plugin for catching suspicious typedef casting |