Re: Using defines for protocol characters

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 12:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > +1. For ease of greppability, maybe even PQMSG_EmptyQueryResponse
> > and so on? Then one grep would find both uses of the constants and
> > code/docs references. Not sure if the prefix should be all-caps or
> > not if we go this way.
>
> 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 ?

Dave