Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h
Date: 2026-01-20 23:10:49
Message-ID: 1935052.1768950649@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> This is a tiny followup to https://postgr.es/c/0664aa4ff8 that
> enshrines the unused 3.1 protocol version as PG_PROTOCOL_RSRV31. The
> patch comes from [1]; I just wanted to give people the opportunity to
> bikeshed the name (or object to the move?) before it becomes part of a
> public header.

+1 for concept, but I agree the name needs bikeshedding. "RSRV"
is unreadable, and people might well mentally expand it to
something involving "server", leading to confusion.

How about "PG_PROTOCOL_RESERVED_31" or
"PG_PROTOCOL_UNUSED_31"?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2026-01-20 23:17:37 Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-01-20 23:07:13 Re: Mystery with REVOKE PRIVILEGE