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

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, 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: 2026-01-23 21:12:12
Message-ID: CAOYmi+mbza4JbqZ2_tAbpWKQuLiUn-FQhJC8e-eFvayA_bNV9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> RESERVED seems clearer to me. And for people interested in why, the
> comment above its definition describes it suffiecently.

Pushed as PG_PROTOCOL_RESERVED_31. Thank you both!

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2026-01-23 21:29:28 Re: New year, new commitfest app improvements
Previous Message Dharin Shah 2026-01-23 21:08:58 Re: [PATCH] tests: verify renamed index functionality in alter_table