Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vignesh Raghunathan <vignesh(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Date: 2015-07-21 00:59:30
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSV1kR6FqWf2rOVter5cXAW8oTH+DKZjwP4Meji5do5wg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

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.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20150721_pageheader_docfix.patch text/x-patch 2.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2015-07-27 19:30:50 Re: Fwd: Publishing PG docs
Previous Message Vignesh Raghunathan 2015-07-20 21:54:08 Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation