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

On 30/10/2024 15:58, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> 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.

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.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)