Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: > On 17.12.2012 11:04, Pavan Deolasee wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >>> I've still used XLByte* macros, but I agree that plain <=> are easier to >>> read. +1 for using <=> in new code.
>> Do we ever see us changing this from 64-bit integers to something else >> ? If so, a macro would be much better. > I don't see us changing it again any time soon. Maybe in 20 years time > people will start overflowing 2^64 bytes of WAL generated in the > lifetime of a database, but I don't think we need to start preparing for > that yet. Note that to get to 2^64 in twenty years, an installation would have had to have generated an average of 29GB of WAL per second, 24x7 for the entire twenty years, with never a dump-and-reload. We're still a few orders of magnitude away from needing to think about this. But, if the day ever comes when 64 bits doesn't seem like enough, I bet we'd move to 128-bit integers, which will surely be available on all platforms by then. So +1 for using plain comparisons --- in fact, I'd vote for running around and ripping out the macros altogether. I had already been thinking of fixing the places that are still using memset to initialize XLRecPtrs to "invalid". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers