| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c |
| Date: | 2025-07-25 14:38:31 |
| Message-ID: | aIOW5_jI8YaBuBo0@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 05:39:14PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> I'm going to wait to see if there are any other opinions. Last time I did
> this there were quite a few opinions before finally settling on the naming
+1 to a new prefix. I don't have any strong opinions on the exact choice,
though. PqReplMsg, ReplMsg, PqMsg_Repl, etc. seem like some obvious
options.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2025-07-25 14:47:52 | Use PqMsg_* macros in basebackup_copy.c |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-25 14:34:31 | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c |