Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. pqcomm.h: Explicitly reserve protocol v3.1

  1. [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

    Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> — 2026-01-20T23:04:44Z

    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]; 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] https://postgr.es/m/CAOYmi%2B%3DPMq5wiKjBuOF2_W6JYRnPFYbgp7P-MRa2ymFo89%3D6BQ%40mail.gmail.com

  2. Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2026-01-20T23:10:49Z

    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

  3. Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

    Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> — 2026-01-20T23:17:37Z

    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

  4. Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

    Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> — 2026-01-21T07:50:03Z

    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.

  5. Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h

    Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> — 2026-01-23T21:12:12Z

    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