Re: Corrected documentation of data type for the logical replication message formats.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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