Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/19/2012 01:47 AM, Christopher Browne wrote: > That numbering scheme gets pretty anti-intuitive fairly quickly, > from whence we took the approach of having a couple digits > indicating data centre followed by a digit indicating which node in > that data centre. > > If that all sounds incoherent, well, the more nodes you have > around, the more difficult it becomes to make sure you *do* have a > coherent picture of your cluster. > > I recall the Slony-II project having a notion of attaching a > permanent UUID-based node ID to each node. As long as there is > somewhere decent to find a symbolically significant node "name," I > like the idea of the ID *not* being in a tiny range, and being > UUID/OID-like... > Just as a sidenote, MySQL's new global transaction ids use a UUID for the serverid bit of it. [1] - - Hannu Valtonen [1] http://d2-systems.blogspot.fi/2012/04/global-transaction-identifiers-are-in.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP4B2ZAAoJENx2aQJr96ohm/4QAOKqFkyBlbwn1k69z6jmqbyq vn1pCtAKgpdL3wdOEIipotylJnyl9Aqd8IRQT/j3u2dDOWbFqf6Xs3t8x6NbE06T 4kBANs7VjZwSgUlnmU6zsGhX5RB+mHEmnjKn+GG3uA4m5Qo5WvvzfwxKXDdOfSuw ChLgTTse28OV5xOeQnU4FSPPrsc0AxL8suoUDAi3Qp3EkefgN7zzkfLkw1B+E119 mfxSus9nu4rl4givP+z8VMtfIhU4EqQvQvcI5w6E4aW88iYxzkH/BICyBYGg73e4 SnJfLpaXg/C/Ll0NjKRr9Gsuxl1yStb7vPzc0AQahyE2IyspN+Ga5Y1eyvEfcv5s cOpKFLMPE5sQpvTdcSfZ3/nGotos1PDijVpAy7qVY3m0ow5ECyGv/8sdXSQXut+x f9QVNe3rOznsy3J38Z8OOEaftq30UZt7+cXl4fMvI/eVkva+MyHjdR+aIqzMVh1d S6uCpkK/UUC11PCENdRmVIka6EHAsvs+m9B4kmsHpR4+T/qKVaLdBX27L7k2prse OmJ1qFtOmMqZJHFZ8oCVYoVoK5UEaJfZBLbSyf9vU0iSDh2XlKgVNe6TTE0f+OVE GcqIT2qbc9XG6hFO/C0zy5qdNXem96feBszjWLhf+F9ULq1d0HNEg2WghJJPpan1 adx5JGZK5k0xtSewTj7O =lK2f -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Support for negative index values in array fetching
On 1/5/11 6:19 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: Sorry, but It isn't too intuitive. Minimally for me. Why you don't thinking about simple functions with only positive arguments. There are only four combinations. I don't think we must have only one super function. we need functionality for: a) get first n items b) get items without last n items c) get last n items d) skip first n items Now you've moved the goalpost - the OP wanted to access individual elements, not slices! To support slices, a three-argument version of array_relative() would be required, with the signature array_relative(some_array anyarray, first int[], last int[]) Your requirements (a) to (d) are then easily satisfied a) array_relative(ary, array[0], array[n-1]) b) array_relative(ary, array[0], array[-n-1]) c) array_relative(ary, array[-n], array[-1]) d) array_relative(ary, array[n], array[-1]) The individual function approach might be a tad more readable for one-dimensional arrays, but they don't scale well to the general case. Maybe the OP could comment on whether any of these solutions would fit his needs? Hi, (sorry for the late reply, got lost in my Inbox) For my main use case I just needed the last element of the array, but I could see myself needing a slice as well. (i.e. give me the last 5 items in an array) So in that sense yes, this would fit the bill. Hannu Valtonen Lead Software Architect Technology Office F-Secure Corporationhttp://www.F-Secure.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
