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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Euler Taveira
Тема Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs
Дата
Msg-id CAH503wBwC8A7DbDYUXRqW1ZAHKpj+D9bN7hcgszvP_1FzXbs_Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs  (Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org>)
Список pgsql-docs
Дерево обсуждения
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 15:07, Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> wrote:

> 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?


AFAICS, the definition is correct. Int64 means an 64-bit integer in network byte order [1]. It does not mention signedness. All LSNs in the protocol messages are advertised as Int64. A possible improvement is to inform that that Int64 is a XLogRecPtr in each message block that contains LSN. It used to be like that before the commit add6c3179a4d4fa3e62dd3e86a00f23303336bac

-          The starting point of the WAL data in this message, given in
-          XLogRecPtr format.
+          The starting point of the WAL data in this message.

but it was removed for an unknown reason.



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

В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: