On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:34, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 09:19, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> > wrote: > >> 3. IMO, the names of the protocol messages in protocol.sgml are > >> canonical. Your patch appends "Request" and "Response" in cases where > >> that is not part of the actual name. Also, some messages are documented > >> to go both ways, so this separation doesn't make sense strictly > >> speaking. Please use the names as in protocol.sgml without augmenting > >> them. > > > I've changed this a number of times. I do not mind changing it again, but > > can we reach a consensus ? > > I agree with Peter: let's use the names in the protocol document > with a single prefix. I've got mixed feelings about whether that prefix > should have an underscore, though. >
Well, we're getting closer :) Dave
