| From: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs |
| Date: | 2020-06-11 18:06:52 |
| Message-ID: | CADT4RqBvQtAV8DcXcGSPfchzz_=UWZ7FPkXpdr7EoJGf7vyeEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> > Second, across the protocol docs, rather than using Int32 and Int64,
> which
> > generally look like they're signed (depending on which language you're
> > coming from), I'd consider using UInt32/UInt64, which are unambiguous
> with
> > regards to signed-ness.
>
> Well, they are actually signed, so I'm confused why you think we should
> change the documentation to unsigned.
>
Interesting... I'm not 100% sure, but I recently received a report that the
WAL coordinates in XLogData (
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-replication.html) are
unsigned longs, is that a mistake? Are you saying all values in the
protocol are always signed?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-06-11 20:22:57 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-06-11 17:39:55 | Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs |