Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 20:14, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> Definite screenshot-2 preference for me.  Though I do wonder just looking at the image whether the reserved stuff even needs a table.  The first row is not even a parameter but a guideline, and the second pertains to testing which seems like it can be incorporated separately.  I'd either go for just one table or two separate tables but not the combined variant in screenshot-1.  I'm not seeing an advantage to be gained by the integration.

Agreed. I expect maybe we'll reserve more protocol extensions in the
future (either the improved grease, or when we'll stop supporting an
extension at some point).

Regarding _pq_.[name], I agree with David that I think it would be
better to make that part of the introductory paragraph.