From: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Correct documentation for protocol version |
Date: | 2025-04-11 09:27:38 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HH+Xj4qTHJs+a2AsJrVDsMKkVTAUJod-x9L6SkjQj54Fpg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 05:05, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/04/11 5:17, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > No, you are correct.
> >
> > See new patch
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> - Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation
> + Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation.
> + The server sends this message if the requested protocol is
> + not equal to the version the server supports or the client
> + requests protocol options that are not recognized.
> message.
>
> You added the sentence starting with "The server sends..."
> between "negotiation" and "message", but it should be placed
> after "message", right?
>
> Even though the requested version is not equal to the latest
> version that the server supports, if it's older than
> the latest one, the message is not sent. So how about
> wording it like this instead:
>
> -------------
> Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation message.
> The server sends this message when the client requests a newer
> protocol version than the server supports, or when the client
> includes protocol options that the server does not recognize.
> -------------
>
> + The protcol version requested by the client unless it is higher
> than the
> + latest version we support in which case the latest protocol
> version we support.
>
> Maybe rewording this for clarity and using “the server
> instead of “we” would help. For example:
>
> -------------
> The latest protocol version supported by the server if the client
> requests a newer protocol version than the server supports.
> The protocol version requested by the client, otherwise.
> -------------
>
>
Reworded as suggested
Dave
>
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
protocol-5.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-04-11 09:28:02 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |
Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-04-11 09:25:22 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |