On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion < jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Patch attached > > +/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */ > + > +#define PqMsg_XlogData 'w' > +#define PqMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive 'k' > +#define PqMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate 's' > + > + > +/* Replication Protocol sent by the standby */ > + > +#define PqMsg_StandbyStatus 'r' > +#define PqMsg_HotStandbyFeedback 'h' > +#define PqMsg_RequestPrimaryStatus 'p' > > 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 > > +/* These are the codes sent by the frontend and backend. */ > + > +#define PqMsg_PasswordMessage 'p' > + > +/* These are the codes sent by the frontend and backend. */ > > Is this change intended? > It was as it lines up with the others at least in my editor. I'm not married to it. Dave
