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

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwH9ccoz=Ryf=9ft9QfmkFkff1wAsxXdthnGu88Cvw3VpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation
List pgsql-docs
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.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao


pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: max_worker_processes on the standby
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in Section 63.6 - 9.6devel Documentation