From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reserve protocol 3.1 explicitly in pqcomm.h
In-reply-to: <CAOYmi+kKyw=h-5NKqqpc7HC5M30_QmzFx3kgq2AdipyNj47nUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOYmi+kKyw=h-5NKqqpc7HC5M30_QmzFx3kgq2AdipyNj47nUw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:04:44 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1935051.1768950649.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:10:49 -0500
Message-ID: <1935052.1768950649@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1935052.1768950649%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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