| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(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: | 2025-08-04 21:11:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+nQ75D+OcyDa0cH3q5Hh_vioErtDgXHMaNGK4xfeG2EPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The replication protocol uses many of the
> existing PqMsg macros already, so it would be a little strange if only a
> subset of the replication protocol messages used the special prefix.
May I ask why? These messages are legitimately different; they're
tunneled through CopyData, so their reservations don't collide with
the top-level codes.
> There's also backups, which use the replication protocol but
> have their own special characters [0]. If we're going the prefix route,
> would we add another prefix for those, or use the replication one?
My vote would be to add another. 'p' is a password message in the
top-level protocol (one of many, actually), a progress message in a
backup stream, and a status request in a replication stream, so I
think they deserve their own namespaces.
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-04 21:23:55 | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-08-04 20:23:31 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |