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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Shay Rojansky
Тема Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs
Дата
Msg-id CADT4RqBvQtAV8DcXcGSPfchzz_=UWZ7FPkXpdr7EoJGf7vyeEw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs  (Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список 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?

В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Adding xreflable