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

From: "Jelte Fennema-Nio" <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: "Jacob Champion" <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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: 2026-01-21 07:50:03
Message-ID: DFU3PPIVV2DG.3UW9LAK329PJS@jeltef.nl
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed Jan 21, 2026 at 12:17 AM CET, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I'd be fine with either; slight preference for "RESERVED" I suppose?

RESERVED seems clearer to me. And for people interested in why, the
comment above its definition describes it suffiecently.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2026-01-21 07:52:12 RE: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint
Previous Message Ilia Evdokimov 2026-01-21 07:47:33 Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?