On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd > appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...
I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got this wrong, I sure don't see it. Would it be unreasonable to insist on some documentation around that?
Agreed.
Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?
