Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 20:14, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> Definite screenshot-2 preference for me.  Though I do wonder just looking at the image whether the reserved stuff
evenneeds a table.  The first row is not even a parameter but a guideline, and the second pertains to testing which
seemslike it can be incorporated separately.  I'd either go for just one table or two separate tables but not the
combinedvariant in screenshot-1.  I'm not seeing an advantage to be gained by the integration. 

Agreed. I expect maybe we'll reserve more protocol extensions in the
future (either the improved grease, or when we'll stop supporting an
extension at some point).

Regarding _pq_.[name], I agree with David that I think it would be
better to make that part of the introductory paragraph.