Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jan Wieck wrote: >> BTW, the comment in this file says that we hope we never have more than >> 10 catversion changes per day, but to even make this possible we should >> start counting at zero, shouldn't we?
> The comment says "hopefully we'll never commit ten independent sets of > catalog changes on the same day" (not > 10), so the comment isn't wrong. > But I guess there wouldn't be any harm at starting at zero... Well, if we were seriously concerned about that we'd use 2 digits for NN (and accept the risk that the scheme breaks down in 2147, if people are still using Postgres and 32-bit ints then). But I don't think I've ever seen N get as high as 3, so I'm not worried. Given that we have some headroom there, I'd sooner stick with 1-based counting --- the YYYY, MM, and DD parts of the value are 1-based so it seems odd to decree that N is 0-based. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend