Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSSX8yYkzHrsFDChvEpwWuMekrW2RV+yJR7WLKa6Xf4Fg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
List pgsql-docs
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Vignesh Raghunathan
>> <vignesh.pgsql@gmail.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

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation