On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2017-10-16 16:59:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > Here's what I roughly was thinking of. I don't quite like the name, and
>>> > the way the version is specified for libpq (basically just the "raw"
>>> > integer).
>>>
>>> "forced_protocol_version" reads wrong to me. I think
>>> "force_protocol_version" might be better. Other than that, no issues
>>> with this concept.
>>
>> Yea, I agree. I've read through the patch since, and it struck me as
>> odd. Not sure how I came up with it...
>
> Andres, could you update the patch?
Seeing no activity for three weeks and as we are close to the end of
the CF, I am marking this one as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
