| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use "protocol options" name instead of "protocol extensions" everywhere |
| Date: | 2024-10-31 16:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob4uODh7tayiD2bocxNjFHmNvHrsk-znVyrJ1YCzAXS4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:51 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Bikeshedding time:
>
> "protocol option" makes me think of GUCs.
>
> "optional protocol features" perhaps. A bit long though..
>
> Or keep using "protocol extension" and add a paragraph to the docs to
> say explicitly that there's no support for extensions to create protocol
> extensions. TLS extensions is a good comparison.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion, all of those would work for me.
I don't particularly like "optional protocol features". I find
"protocol extensions" to be mildly clearer than "protocol options,"
but only mildly.
I don't think it's really viable to promise that we'll never talk
about extending anything other than in the context of what CREATE
EXTENSION does.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-10-31 16:14:07 | Re: Count and log pages set all-frozen by vacuum |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-10-31 16:06:25 | Re: small pg_combinebackup improvements |