On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 1:39 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]> wrote: > Overall seems like reasonable restructuring. I think this note feels out of > place now though: > > * The cancel request code must not match any protocol version number > * we're ever likely to use. This random choice should do. > > I think it'd be better to remove that paragraph and maybe extend the section > intro to be something like this (feel free to change/ignore as you see fit):
Good point. I think "actual protocol version" might get a little confusing for a casual reader if/when your _GREASE macro arrives, though. I'll do some wordsmithing. > Finally, the newline addition at line 71 I don't understand the purpose of. This header file separates some sections with two empty lines (though there appears to be no consistency), and if we're going to do that anyway, then it scans easier IMO to have the PG_PROTOCOL section set off from the socket section preceding it. I did the same thing for some of the typedefs and ALPN code later on, though I'm not wedded to that (or any of it) if it makes things worse for others. Thanks, --Jacob
