Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c

On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:11:26PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> 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.

Ah, I missed that finer detail. IIUC the codes at hands are _only_ used in
these tunneled messages, in which case they belong to a distinct category.

>> 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.

These also seem to use the same tunneling mechanism. I retract my
objection.

--
nathan