Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Patch attached
>
> +/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */
> +
> +#define PqMsg_XlogData 'w'
> +#define PqMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive 'k'
> +#define PqMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate 's'
> +
> +
> +/* Replication Protocol sent by the standby */
> +
> +#define PqMsg_StandbyStatus 'r'
> +#define PqMsg_HotStandbyFeedback 'h'
> +#define PqMsg_RequestPrimaryStatus 'p'
>
> Since these are part of the replication subprotocol (i.e. tunneled,
> via CopyData) rather than the top-level wire protocol, do they deserve
> their own prefix? PqReplMsg_* maybe?
>
I'm going to wait to see if there are any other opinions. Last time I did
this there were quite a few opinions before finally settling on the naming

>
> +/* These are the codes sent by the frontend and backend. */
> +
> +#define PqMsg_PasswordMessage 'p'
> +
> +/* These are the codes sent by the frontend and backend. */
>
> Is this change intended?
>
It was as it lines up with the others at least in my editor.
I'm not married to it.

Dave