Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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?

> Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you
> thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?

This is just internal to pg_basebackup isn't it?  I think comments in
walmethods.h would be plenty.
        regards, tom lane