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)
