Re: PG18 protocol version

>> 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.

After thinking more, I reached a conclusion it would better to apply
attached simple patch to v18 since v18 is already in the beta phase
and we want to make changes to it minimal.

For master, I would like to push your patch because your patch
includes a fix plus enhancement, therefore better fits to the
development branch (i,e, master).

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp