On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 9:10 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> writes: > > I agree. The specified value looks better when it comes first, as you did > > it. > > Actually, it looks to me like we don't have to resolve the question of > which should come first, because I don't see any cases where it's > useful to have both. I don't agree with appending "uint8" to those > field descriptions, because it's adding no information, especially > when the high bit couldn't be set anyway. > > At some point it might be useful to add UInt<n> to the set of base > data types, and then go through all the message types and decide > which fields we think are unsigned. But that is not this patch, > and there would be questions about whether it constituted a protocol > break. > > I noticed also that having to add "(Oid)" was sort of self-inflicted > damage, because the field descriptions were using the very vague > term "ID", when they could have said "OID" and been clear. I left > the "(Oid)" additions in place but also changed the text. > > Pushed with those changes. I couldn't resist copy-editing the section > intro, too.
Thanks for pushing the patch. Regards, Vignesh
