Hi Bradley,
Thank your for your follow up. Your patch looks good to me.
Can you please re-send your message in pgsql-hackers attaching to this thread?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20180730.080748.1152436144966943439.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp
I have registered the thread in CommitFest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/19/1738/
Unfortunately CommitFest app does not allow to handle emails other
than posted to pgsql-hackers. So I decided to post to pgsql-hackers
after posting to pgsql-docs.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From: "Bradley DeJong" <bpd0018@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Enhancing protocol.sgml
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:43:28 +0000
Message-ID: <embf269241-6c21-44d2-8c0e-629656d3b112@dolphin>
> On 2018-07-27, Tatsuo Ishii wrote ...
>> ... I think this should be mentioned in protocol.sgml as well. ...
>
> I agree. It is already mentioned as one of the differences between v2
> and v3 but an implementer should not need to read that section if they
> are only implementing v3. (I know I've never looked at it before.)
>
> Using protocol.diff as a base, I changed the phrasing to be more
> prescriptive for v3 protocol implementers (don't send a final line, be
> prepared to receive a final line), changed passive voice to active
> voice and fixed one COPYData -> CopyData capitalization.
>
> I also called this out in the description of the CopyData message
> format because that is where the termination line would be
> transmitted.