[PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h
Hi,
This is a tiny followup to https://postgr.es/c/0664aa4ff8 that
enshrines the unused 3.1 protocol version as PG_PROTOCOL_RSRV31. The
patch comes from [1]/messages/by-id/CAOYmi+=PMq5wiKjBuOF2_W6JYRnPFYbgp7P-MRa2ymFo89=6BQ@mail.gmail.com; I just wanted to give people the opportunity to
bikeshed the name (or object to the move?) before it becomes part of a
public header.
Thanks,
--Jacob
[1]: /messages/by-id/CAOYmi+=PMq5wiKjBuOF2_W6JYRnPFYbgp7P-MRa2ymFo89=6BQ@mail.gmail.com
Attachments:
0001-pqcomm.h-Explicitly-reserve-protocol-v3.1.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-pqcomm.h-Explicitly-reserve-protocol-v3.1.patchDownload+7-2
Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> writes:
This is a tiny followup to https://postgr.es/c/0664aa4ff8 that
enshrines the unused 3.1 protocol version as PG_PROTOCOL_RSRV31. The
patch comes from [1]; I just wanted to give people the opportunity to
bikeshed the name (or object to the move?) before it becomes part of a
public header.
+1 for concept, but I agree the name needs bikeshedding. "RSRV"
is unreadable, and people might well mentally expand it to
something involving "server", leading to confusion.
How about "PG_PROTOCOL_RESERVED_31" or
"PG_PROTOCOL_UNUSED_31"?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 3:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
How about "PG_PROTOCOL_RESERVED_31" or
"PG_PROTOCOL_UNUSED_31"?
I'd be fine with either; slight preference for "RESERVED" I suppose?
Thanks!
--Jacob
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.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.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