On 31.01.25 10:32, Laurenz Albe wrote:
I'll set this patch to "ready for committer".
This is about the color of the bikeshed, and several people
have voiced their opinion. I don't think much more review
is needed. All that is needed is a committer who either
commits or rejects it.
I don't thi
I'll set this patch to "ready for committer".
This is about the color of the bikeshed, and several people
have voiced their opinion. I don't think much more review
is needed. All that is needed is a committer who either
commits or rejects it.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Mon, 2024-12-23 at 16:39 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 18:15, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > Bikeshedding time:
> >
> > Another few options:
>
> Okay let's just pick one of the available options. The
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 8:39 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 18:15, Jelte Fennema-Nio
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > > Bikeshedding time:
> >
> > Another few options:
>
> Okay let's just pick one of the available options. The
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 18:15, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Bikeshedding time:
>
> Another few options:
Okay let's just pick one of the available options. The current
situation where we use different terminology for the same thing across
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 7:51 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.
Of the three proposed, this last one is m
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 17:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
Agreed, but it seems nice to avoid confusion by not overloading
terminology, if we can find a
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bikeshedding time:
Another few options:
4. Protocol enhancement
5. Protocol flag
6. Protocol feature-flag
7. Protocol configuration
8. Protocol parameter
One thing to consider is that there's two ways of using them:
1. Turning an optional
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:51 AM Heikki Linnakangas 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 sup
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 s
10 matches
Mail list logo
