From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2021-08-01 15:26:33 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm3sK75Mo+VzLmNGe29gYtJoeKHshAK0GDiAzfAj6LQPdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ v6-0001-Included-the-actual-datatype-used-in-logical-repl.patch ]
>
> I see what you want to do here, but the way you did it seems quite
> detrimental to the readability of the field descriptions.
> Parenthesized interjections should be used sparingly.
>
> I'm inclined to think that the equivalent data type is part of the
> field data type specification, and thus that we ought to put it in
> the data type part of each entry. So we'd have something like
>
> <varlistentry>
> <term>
> Int64 (XLogRecPtr)
> </term>
> <listitem>
> <para>
> The final LSN of the transaction.
> </para>
> </listitem>
> </varlistentry>
>
I made changes based on the feedback, since Peter also was in favour
of using this approach, I modified based on the first approach.
Attached v7 patch has the changes for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v7-0001-Included-the-actual-datatype-used-in-logical-repl.patch | text/x-patch | 10.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2021-08-01 15:32:16 | Re: Corrected documentation of data type for the logical replication message formats. |
Previous Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-08-01 14:38:40 | Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions |