Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta

On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 2:27 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> All in all, I don't really think it's wort the complexity.

Agreed.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 11:14 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Definite screenshot-2 preference for me.

Being outvoted, I will hold my nose and split the tables in two. But --

On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 3:13 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> Regarding _pq_.[name], I agree with David that I think it would be
> better to make that part of the introductory paragraph.

-- I don't see much use in moving the row for the _pq_ namespace out
of that second table, since the idea is for them to document the
reservations, similarly to how you might take a quick look at the TLS
extension space [1]. Moving or rewording or whatever else needs to be
done in the name of clarity is great, if my proposed doc is confusing
for new implementers. But just removing it from the registry table is
counterproductive, IMO.

Thanks!
--Jacob

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml