Re: Using defines for protocol characters

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:34, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 09:19, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> wrote:
> >> 3. IMO, the names of the protocol messages in protocol.sgml are
> >> canonical.  Your patch appends "Request" and "Response" in cases where
> >> that is not part of the actual name.  Also, some messages are documented
> >> to go both ways, so this separation doesn't make sense strictly
> >> speaking.  Please use the names as in protocol.sgml without augmenting
> >> them.
>
> > I've changed this a number of times. I do not mind changing it again, but
> > can we reach a consensus ?
>
> I agree with Peter: let's use the names in the protocol document
> with a single prefix.  I've got mixed feelings about whether that prefix
> should have an underscore, though.
>

Well, we're getting closer :)

Dave