Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs

On 2020-06-09 23:35, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The protocol docs generally do not mention whether ints are signed or
> unsigned - this has actually bitten me once in the past, where a signed int
> was accidentally used to interpret an unsigned int coming from PostgreSQL,
> leading to issues. The ambiguity has made me resort to inspecting the
> PostgreSQL sources in order to be sure.
>
> First, I'd consider clarifying this on the "Message Data Types" page
> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-message-types.html)

sure

> 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.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services