Re: PG18 protocol version

> Let me rephrase what you are saying to be sure I understand it
> correctly: Since it's stated in the page that the page describes the
> 3.2 protocol specifically, arguably there's only one valid
> StartupMessage within that context, i.e. the one with 196610.

Your rephrasing is correct.

> I agree that that's strictly true, but I think I still prefer my newly
> proposed wording for a few reasons:
> 1. My new wording is generic enough that we don't need to update it in
> the future.
> 2. A 3.2 server will currently still receive a 3.0 message, and might
> want to support downgrading. Or maybe it will get a 3.3
> StartupMessage, to which it should respond with a
> NegotiateProtocolVersion message. The new wording makes it clear that
> the version in the StartupMessage isn't necessarily a fixed number.

I am not sure when we create 3.3 protocol, we do not want to up date
"As an example protocol version 3.2" to "As an example protocol
version 3.3". If we would want to update it anyway, I would prefer
"Current protocol version 3.2" over "An as example protocol version
3.2" because it's easy to understand. But I think it's a matter of
taste.

> 3. As a user of the docs I think the 196608/196610 decimal is more
> confusing than helpful. Anything that implements the protocol would
> benefit from using the hexadecimal representation instead in its code
> (at least until we reach protocol version 3.10).

Yeah. I always translate deciaml to hexa using bc command when reading
the docs.

If there's no objection, I would like to push the patch.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp