Re: [REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support
Date: 2017-03-15 15:20:53
Message-ID: 20170315152052.GV9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings Hari Babu,

* Haribabu Kommi (kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > And, naturally, re-reading the email as it hit the list made me realize
> > that the documentation/error-message incorrectly said "3rd and 4th"
> > bytes were being set to FF and FE, when it's actually the 4th and 5th
> > byte. The code was correct, just the documentation and the error
> > message had the wrong numbers. The commit message is also correct.
>
> Thanks for the review and corrections.
>
> I found some small corrections.
>
> s/4rd/4th/g -- Type correction.
>
> + Input is accepted in the following formats:
>
> As we are supporting many different input variants, and all combinations
> are not listed, so how about changing the above statement as below.
>
> "Following are the some of the input formats that are accepted:"

Good points, I incorporated them along with a bit of additional
information in the documentation as to what we do actually support.

> I didn't find any other problems during testing and review. The patch
> is fine.

Great! I've committed this now. If you see anything additional or
other changes which should be made, please let me know.

... and bumped catversion after (thanks for the reminder, Robert!).

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2017-03-15 15:21:22 Re: Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2017-03-15 15:20:07 Re: Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions