On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >>>> Yeah, the use of XLogFile to mean something other than, well a file in >>>> the xlog, is greatly annoying.. I guess we could change it, but it >>>> goes pretty deep in the system so it's not a small change... >> >>> The whole thing was built around the lack of 64 bit integers. If we bit >>> the bullet and changed the whole thing to be just a single 64-bit >>> counter, we could probably delete thousands of lines of code. >> >> Hm. I think "thousands" is an overestimate, but yeah the logic could be >> greatly simplified. However, I'm not sure we could avoid breaking the >> existing naming convention for WAL files. How much do we care about >> that? > > Probably not very much, since WAL files aren't portable across major > versions anyway. But I don't see why you couldn't keep the naming > convention - there's nothing to prevent you from converting a 64-bit > integer back into two 32-bit integers if and where needed.
On further reflection, this seems likely to break quite a few third-party tools. Maybe it'd be worth it anyway, but it definitely seems like it would be worth going to at least some minor trouble to avoid it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
