On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 10:38, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > I chose PqReplMsg patch attached Dave
0001-Rename-replication-messages-to-start-with-PqReplMsg.patch
Description: Binary data
