Re: Using defines for protocol characters

> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 16:50, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> >>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 12:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> PqMsgEmptyQueryResponse or something like that seems better, if we
>> >>>> want to keep the current capitalization. I'm not a huge fan of the way
>> >>>> we vary our capitalization conventions so much all over the code base,
>> >>>> but I think we would at least do well to keep it consistent from one
>> >>>> end of a certain identifier to the other.
>> >>
>> >>> I don't have a strong preference, but before I make the changes I'd
>> like to
>> >>> get consensus.
>> >>> Can we vote or whatever it takes to decide on a naming pattern that is
>> >>> acceptable ?
>> >>
>> >> I'm good with Robert's proposal above.
>> >
>> > +1
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Also we need to decide what to do with them:
>>
>> > #define PQMSG_REQ_PREPARED 'S'
>> > #define PQMSG_REQ_PORTAL 'P'
>>
>> If we go "PqMsgEmptyQueryResponse", probably we should go something
>> like for these?
>>
>> #define PqMsgReqPrepared 'S'
>> #define PqMsgReqPortal 'P'
>>
>
> I went with PqMsgPortalSubCommand and PqMsgPreparedSubCommand
>
> See attached patch

Looks good to me.

Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS LLC
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp