| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Use "protocol options" name instead of "protocol extensions" everywhere |
| Date: | 2024-10-30 13:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQQoc+V94TrF-5cMikCMaf-uUnU52euwSCtQBeDYqXnXyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It was pointed out by Heikki in the thread around protocol-level
wait-for-LSN that "protocol extensions" is a pretty confusing name,
since it suggests a relation to Postgres extensions. Even though there
is no such relationship at all. Attached is a small patch that aligns
on the name "protocol options" instead. This terminology is already
used in a bunch of the docs.
Since no protocol options have been introduced yet, it seems like now
is a good time to align on what to call them. It might even be worth
backporting this to have our docs of previous versions be consistent.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Rename-protocol-extensions-to-protocol-options-in.patch | text/x-patch | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-10-30 14:01:27 | Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-10-30 13:58:30 | Re: AIO writes vs hint bits vs checksums |