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