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.
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 |