Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h
Date: 2026-01-20 23:17:37
Message-ID: CAOYmi+=oOqkvuij1boH4RzDnkTJoUhR8_WtT3DYoqqgwjm8gJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 3:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> How about "PG_PROTOCOL_RESERVED_31" or
> "PG_PROTOCOL_UNUSED_31"?

I'd be fine with either; slight preference for "RESERVED" I suppose?

Thanks!
--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-01-20 23:18:41 Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-01-20 23:10:49 Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h