| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c |
| Date: | 2025-07-24 21:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+mTZcww9k2o+Stc9QSD-cUPC4t_c0Nn_TFQA2c443UdkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
+/* 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?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-07-24 21:11:06 | Re: Commitfest 2025-03 still has active patches |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2025-07-24 21:03:27 | Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY |