On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 7:00 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> writes:
> [ v6-0001-Included-the-actual-datatype-used-in-logical-repl.patch ]
>
> I see what you want to do here, but the way you did it seems quite
> detrimental to the readability of the field descriptions.
> Parenthesized interjections should be used sparingly.
>
> I'm inclined to think that the equivalent data type is part of the
> field data type specification, and thus that we ought to put it in
> the data type part of each entry. So we'd have something like
>
> <varlistentry>
> <term>
> Int64 (XLogRecPtr)
> </term>
> <listitem>
> <para>
> The final LSN of the transaction.
> </para>
> </listitem>
> </varlistentry>
>
> instead of what you did here. Parentheses might not be the best
> punctuation to use, given the existing convention about parenthesized
> specific values, but we could probably settle on some other markup.
> Or just ignore the ambiguity.
+1 to change it like suggested above.
The specific value for the flags might then look like below, but that
does not look too bad to me.
<term>
Int8 (uint8) (0)
</term>
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
