From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FE/BE docs and unsigned integers
In-reply-to: <1388686291.19125.437.camel@jdavis>
References: <1388686291.19125.437.camel@jdavis>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
 message dated "Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:11:31 -0800"
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:41:11 -0500
Message-ID: <1381.1388688071@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> The documentation doesn't give much of a hint that the protocol is using
> unsigned integers. For instance, under ParameterDescription here:

> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/protocol-message-formats.html

> it says that the object ID is an Int32, which is described here:

> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/protocol-message-types.html

> as just a plain 32-bit integer. But the code (e.g.
> getParamDescriptions()) is clearly reading it into an Oid, which is
> unsigned.

> Is there a reason this isn't clear? Is it meant to be ambiguous because
> (as far as the protocol is concerned) it's just an opaque 32 bits?

I think it was just laziness, and/or not wanting to add a uint32 type
to the documentation's notation, since (IIRC) there aren't any places
where a field is unsigned and that really matters to the protocol.

If you think it's worth being more precise, feel free to submit a patch.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs