From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: FE/BE docs and unsigned integers |
Date: | 2014-01-02 18:41:11 |
Message-ID: | 1381.1388688071@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> The documentation doesn't give much of a hint that the protocol is using
> unsigned integers. For instance, under ParameterDescription here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/protocol-message-formats.html
> it says that the object ID is an Int32, which is described here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/protocol-message-types.html
> as just a plain 32-bit integer. But the code (e.g.
> getParamDescriptions()) is clearly reading it into an Oid, which is
> unsigned.
> Is there a reason this isn't clear? Is it meant to be ambiguous because
> (as far as the protocol is concerned) it's just an opaque 32 bits?
I think it was just laziness, and/or not wanting to add a uint32 type
to the documentation's notation, since (IIRC) there aren't any places
where a field is unsigned and that really matters to the protocol.
If you think it's worth being more precise, feel free to submit a patch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Barry Gysbers | 2014-01-06 16:18:42 | pgAmin III 1.18.0 docs. |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2014-01-02 18:11:31 | FE/BE docs and unsigned integers |