Re: NegotiateProtocolVersion description

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NegotiateProtocolVersion description
Date: 2025-07-05 14:48:32
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYUfa8qFPvZfo0xHvEqK5YO_ox3TwwFkCR8Z_TnMKE_mg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Saturday, July 5, 2025, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

> In the docs (54.7. Message Formats) NegotiateProtocolVersion message's
> third field is described as below:
>
> "Newest minor protocol version supported by the server for the major
> protocol version requested by the client. "
>
> From the description initially I thought the field value is minor
> protocol version (e.g. 0, 2). However I realized that it's actually
> protocol major version plus protocol minor version, like
> StartupMessage. Probably my misunderstanding is due to my limited
> English ability, but I just want to make sure that the current
> description definitely matches what the field actually represents.
>

Add an example? I like the wording as-is, though I can see your point. I
wouldn’t expect the returned value to be a fragment of a version in this
context so minor just emphasizes that the client is applying a filter on
the major version it supports. I’d be ok with removing “minor” altogether.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2025-07-05 15:16:15 Re: Buildfarm animal prion can't complete tests in 4 hours nowadays
Previous Message Ross Heaney 2025-07-05 14:18:28 Re: Bloom Filter improvements in postgesql