On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 16:50, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 12:59, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> PqMsgEmptyQueryResponse or something like that seems better, if we > >>>> want to keep the current capitalization. I'm not a huge fan of the way > >>>> we vary our capitalization conventions so much all over the code base, > >>>> but I think we would at least do well to keep it consistent from one > >>>> end of a certain identifier to the other. > >> > >>> I don't have a strong preference, but before I make the changes I'd > like to > >>> get consensus. > >>> Can we vote or whatever it takes to decide on a naming pattern that is > >>> acceptable ? > >> > >> I'm good with Robert's proposal above. > > > > +1 > > +1. > > Also we need to decide what to do with them: > > > #define PQMSG_REQ_PREPARED 'S' > > #define PQMSG_REQ_PORTAL 'P' > > If we go "PqMsgEmptyQueryResponse", probably we should go something > like for these? > > #define PqMsgReqPrepared 'S' > #define PqMsgReqPortal 'P' > I went with PqMsgPortalSubCommand and PqMsgPreparedSubCommand See attached patch Dave
0001-Created-protocol.h.patch
Description: Binary data
