On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:51 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > 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.
I don't particularly like "optional protocol features". I find "protocol extensions" to be mildly clearer than "protocol options," but only mildly. I don't think it's really viable to promise that we'll never talk about extending anything other than in the context of what CREATE EXTENSION does. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
