Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:53:56 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Using defines for protocol characters
Message-ID: <20230803185356.GA1144430@nathanxps13>
References: 
 <CADK3HHKbBmK-PKf1bPNFoMC+oBt+pD9PH8h5nvmBQskEHm-Ehw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230803175940.vf3os5y37c7vrbwl@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CADK3HHJamHtwxP=uVuc=eqc-MtV4L6ORYJH4089fag_PmiQqLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADK3HHJamHtwxP=uVuc=eqc-MtV4L6ORYJH4089fag_PmiQqLA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230803185356.GA1144430%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:07:21PM -0600, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 11:59, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> I don't really like the name pattern you've chosen though; I think we
>> need to have a common prefix in the defines.  Maybe prepending PQMSG_ to
>> each name would be enough.  And maybe turn the _RESPONSE and _REQUEST
>> suffixes you added into prefixes as well, so instead of PARSE_REQUEST
>> you could make it PQMSG_REQ_PARSE, PQMSG_RESP_BIND_COMPLETE and so
>> on.
>>
> That becomes trivial to do now that the names are defined. I presumed
> someone would object to the names.
> I'm fine with the names you propose, but I suggest we wait to see if anyone
> objects.

I'm okay with the proposed names as well.

> + * src/include/protocol.h

Could we put these definitions in an existing header such as
src/include/libpq/pqcomm.h?  I see that's where the authentication request
codes live today.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com