Re: Using defines for protocol characters

Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 09:19, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> 3. IMO, the names of the protocol messages in protocol.sgml are
>> canonical.  Your patch appends "Request" and "Response" in cases where
>> that is not part of the actual name.  Also, some messages are documented
>> to go both ways, so this separation doesn't make sense strictly
>> speaking.  Please use the names as in protocol.sgml without augmenting
>> them.

> I've changed this a number of times. I do not mind changing it again, but
> can we reach a consensus ?

I agree with Peter: let's use the names in the protocol document
with a single prefix.  I've got mixed feelings about whether that prefix
should have an underscore, though.

            regards, tom lane