On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@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? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
