On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 18:30, Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I really intended the _pq_ prefix as a way of taking something out of
>> > the GUC namespace, not as a part of the GUC namespace that users would
>> > see. And I'm reluctant to go back on that. If we want to make
>> > pg_protocol.${NAME} mean a wire protocol parameter, well maybe there's
>> > something to that idea [insert caveats here]. But doesn't _pq_ look
>> > like something that was intended to be internal? That's certainly how
>> > I intended it.
>
>
> Is this actually used in practice? If so, how ?No, it's not used for anything at the moment. This whole thread is basically about trying to agree on how we want to make protocol changes in the future in a somewhat standardized way. But using the tools available that we have to not break connecting to old postgres servers: ProtocolVersionNegotation messages, minor version numbers, and _pq_ parameters in the startup message. All of those have so far been completely theoretical and have not appeared in any client-server communication.
