Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:38:31 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c
Message-ID: <aIOW5_jI8YaBuBo0@nathan>
References: 
 <CADK3HH+owWVdnbmWH4NHG8=+kXA_wjsyEVLoY719iJnb=+tT6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <aIA2l5mmHz9Wp0i-@nathan>
 <aIECfYfevCUpenBT@nathan>
 <CADK3HHL-WQxNWQ--Pi+Deu88yXdp_pkVpfThJ0AZ5+qbT-njgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HHJjdqXEs1a0UdBUy5zfN1AX5T4N1UO+XEufPruWRwqo8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+mTZcww9k2o+Stc9QSD-cUPC4t_c0Nn_TFQA2c443UdkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HHLmF2XYsqtSonn-tTHmtYdrOgsoVTXiVDSEf01Far2-cg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADK3HHLmF2XYsqtSonn-tTHmtYdrOgsoVTXiVDSEf01Far2-cg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aIOW5_jI8YaBuBo0%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 05:39:14PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> 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

+1 to a new prefix.  I don't have any strong opinions on the exact choice,
though.  PqReplMsg, ReplMsg, PqMsg_Repl, etc. seem like some obvious
options.

-- 
nathan