On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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. >
I probably did not mean increasing that to beyond 64-bit. OTOH I wondered if we would ever want to steal a few bits from the LSN field, given the numbers you just put out. But it was more of a question than objection. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
