Subject: Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs
To: roji@roji.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <159173854100.661.1819403154632752741@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <b6eb1e01-7ed3-37a6-e1f9-3b270236f1e7@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:39:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <159173854100.661.1819403154632752741@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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