Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c

On 2025-Jul-24, Dave Cramer wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> wrote:

> > +/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */
> > +
> > +#define PqMsg_XlogData              'w'
> > +#define PqMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive      'k'
> > +#define PqMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate   's'
> > +
> > +
> > +/* Replication Protocol sent by the standby */
> > +
> > +#define PqMsg_StandbyStatus         'r'
> > +#define PqMsg_HotStandbyFeedback    'h'
> > +#define PqMsg_RequestPrimaryStatus  'p'
> >
> > Since these are part of the replication subprotocol (i.e. tunneled,
> > via CopyData) rather than the top-level wire protocol, do they deserve
> > their own prefix? PqReplMsg_* maybe?
>
> I'm going to wait to see if there are any other opinions. Last time I did
> this there were quite a few opinions before finally settling on the naming

Count me in.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The Postgresql hackers have what I call a "NASA space shot" mentality.
 Quite refreshing in a world of "weekend drag racer" developers."
(Scott Marlowe)