Re: Use "protocol options" name instead of "protocol extensions" everywhere

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(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 16:39:58
Message-ID: CAOYmi+nWW+_S7HEk9qejvqZEQ=-Qouq5adqwDrK=PdJdxwixig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 7:51 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> 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.

Of the three proposed, this last one is my preference. I think it'd be
good to draw very clear lines between the transport level, the
protocol level, and the application level.

Thanks,
--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-10-31 17:15:03 Re: Use "protocol options" name instead of "protocol extensions" everywhere
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2024-10-31 16:37:43 Re: Having problems generating a code coverage report