| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using defines for protocol characters |
| Date: | 2023-08-07 21:47:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20230807214714.GA1284531@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 12:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> PqMsgEmptyQueryResponse or something like that seems better, if we
>>> want to keep the current capitalization. I'm not a huge fan of the way
>>> we vary our capitalization conventions so much all over the code base,
>>> but I think we would at least do well to keep it consistent from one
>>> end of a certain identifier to the other.
>
>> I don't have a strong preference, but before I make the changes I'd like to
>> get consensus.
>> Can we vote or whatever it takes to decide on a naming pattern that is
>> acceptable ?
>
> I'm good with Robert's proposal above.
+1
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-07 22:05:14 | Re: Configurable FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-07 21:36:48 | Re: Configurable FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND |