> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> After thinking more, I reached a conclusion it would better to apply
>> attached simple patch to v18 since v18 is already in the beta phase
>> and we want to make changes to it minimal.
>
> I thought that clarifying docs was exactly one of the
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> After thinking more, I reached a conclusion it would better to apply
> attached simple patch to v18 since v18 is already in the beta phase
> and we want to make changes to it minimal.
I thought that clarifying docs was exactly one of the things t
>> I agree that that's strictly true, but I think I still prefer my newly
>> proposed wording for a few reasons:
>> 1. My new wording is generic enough that we don't need to update it in
>> the future.
>> 2. A 3.2 server will currently still receive a 3.0 message, and might
>> want to support downg
> Let me rephrase what you are saying to be sure I understand it
> correctly: Since it's stated in the page that the page describes the
> 3.2 protocol specifically, arguably there's only one valid
> StartupMessage within that context, i.e. the one with 196610.
Your rephrasing is correct.
> I agre
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 13:34, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
> > information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
> > future 3.x)
>
> I meant this.
> >> - (0 for the protocol described here).
>
> With your patch
Hi,
> I meant this.
> >> - (0 for the protocol described here).
>
> With your patch the explanation that this document (Message Formats)
> is for 3.2, is gone. But maybe it's okay since "54.1.4. Protocol
> versions" already stats that the whole F/B protocol docs is for 3.2.
>
> What do you
> I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
> information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
> future 3.x)
I meant this.
>> - (0 for the protocol described here).
With your patch the explanation that this document (Message Formats)
is for 3.2, is
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 12:16, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Why do you remove the info?
I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
future 3.x)
> Yeah it seems we didn't update this part of the docs. Attached is a
> patch to fix that.
> - the major version number (3 for the protocol described here).
> - The least significant 16 bits are the minor version number
> - (0 for the protocol described here).
Why do you r
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 08:56, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> So I suspect this is just a typo.
Yeah it seems we didn't update this part of the docs. Attached is a
patch to fix that.
From 8cfafc9518156e3213d0da9b19010c3211aff60b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:11
In the PG18 docs, I see:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/protocol-message-formats.html
StartupMessage (F)
:
Int32(196608)
The protocol version number. The most significant 16 bits are the
major version number (3 for the protocol described here). The
least significant 16 bits are th
11 matches
Mail list logo
