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

Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>

To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-07-28T19:15:23Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Expand usage of macros for protocol characters.
- 9ea3b6f751ab 19 (unreleased) landed
Rename XLogData protocol message to WALData
- 07684443b1e0 19 (unreleased) landed
Use PqMsg_* macros in walsender.c
- 37c7a7eeb6d1 19 (unreleased) landed

Attachments

0001-Rename-replication-messages-to-start-with-PqReplMsg.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0001

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 10:38, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 05:39:14PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> > jacob.champion@enterprisedb.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.
>
> I chose PqReplMsg patch attached

Dave