| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrected documentation of data type for the logical replication message formats. |
| Date: | 2021-07-22 21:53:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+Pv3uDh6BfN8ScCs7V_9Jbe3bCuWTa=YbGf2Z6t3msp-_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think the patch maybe is not quite correct for all the flags.
For example,
@@ -7607,44 +7615,44 @@ are available since protocol version 3.
<varlistentry>
<term>Int8</term>
<listitem><para>
- Flags; currently unused (must be 0).
+ Flags (uint8); currently unused.
</para></listitem>
</varlistentry>
AFAIK, even though the flags are "unused", the code still insists that
most (or all? Please check the code) of these flag values MUST be 0,
so I think that this zero value requirement ought to be indicated in
the docs using the "Int8(0)" convention [1]. For example,
BEFORE
Int8
Flags (uint8); currently unused.
AFTER
Int8(0)
Flags (uint8); currently unused.
------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/protocol-message-types.html
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-07-22 21:59:42 | Re: Have I found an interval arithmetic bug? |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2021-07-22 21:40:12 | Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals |