On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:11:26PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The replication protocol uses many of the >> existing PqMsg macros already, so it would be a little strange if only a >> subset of the replication protocol messages used the special prefix. > > May I ask why? These messages are legitimately different; they're > tunneled through CopyData, so their reservations don't collide with > the top-level codes.
Ah, I missed that finer detail. IIUC the codes at hands are _only_ used in these tunneled messages, in which case they belong to a distinct category. >> There's also backups, which use the replication protocol but >> have their own special characters [0]. If we're going the prefix route, >> would we add another prefix for those, or use the replication one? > > My vote would be to add another. 'p' is a password message in the > top-level protocol (one of many, actually), a progress message in a > backup stream, and a status request in a replication stream, so I > think they deserve their own namespaces. These also seem to use the same tunneling mechanism. I retract my objection. -- nathan
