Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vignesh Raghunathan <vignesh(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Date: 2015-09-10 06:05:55
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSSX8yYkzHrsFDChvEpwWuMekrW2RV+yJR7WLKa6Xf4Fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Vignesh Raghunathan
>> <vignesh(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> It has been mentioned in Section 63.6 that the first two fields in
>>> PageHeaderData track the most recent WAL entry related to the page. However,
>>> I am not sure how pd_checksum is related to WAL. Could it be possible that
>>> the sentence has been carried over from previous versions of the
>>> documentations without considering the change to the second field in
>>> PageHeaderData?
>>
>> Yes, the documentation is mistaken. The two bytes of pd_tli have been
>> switched to pd_checksum in 9.3, hence only the first field is relevant
>> for WAL, aka pd_lsn. Looking at this portion of the docs I think that
>> it should be updated as attached, mentioning pd_checksum as well.
>
> Also the type of pd_lsn in the Table 63-3 should be PageXLogRecPtr.

Yep. See attached FWIW.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20150910_pageheader_docfix_v2.patch text/x-diff 2.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2015-09-11 04:04:03 Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2015-09-09 15:42:27 Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation