On 12/30/2015 06:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 30 December 2015 at 00:17, Joe Conway > wrote:
On 12/29/2015 07:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. Use of the same x/y notation with two different bases
seems like
> a recipe for
=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBUYWxsw7Nu?= writes:
> On 12/30/2015 06:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> There is already long precedent about how to represent an XID with an
>> epoch... and it is neither of those two formats.
> IMHO, we have been telling users that XIDs are
=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBUYWxsw7Nu?= writes:
> On 12/29/2015 01:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 29/12/15 07:14, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> Shouldn't it use "%X/%X", same as e.g. "Prior checkpoint location" and
>>> all the other XIDs?
>> No. The "locations" in the
On 12/29/2015 07:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. Use of the same x/y notation with two different bases seems like
> a recipe for confusion. It's probably too late to do anything about
> this for 9.5, but I'd be +1 for adopting Jose's suggestion or some
> other formatting tweak in HEAD.
I made
On 30 December 2015 at 00:17, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 07:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah. Use of the same x/y notation with two different bases seems like
> > a recipe for confusion. It's probably too late to do anything about
> > this for 9.5, but I'd be +1 for
On 12/29/2015 01:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 29/12/15 07:14, Joe Conway wrote:
I wonder why "Latest checkpoint's NextXID" is formated like this:
8<-
printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID: %u/%u\n"),
On 29/12/15 07:14, Joe Conway wrote:
I wonder why "Latest checkpoint's NextXID" is formated like this:
8<-
printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID: %u/%u\n"),
ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXidEpoch,
I wonder why "Latest checkpoint's NextXID" is formated like this:
8<-
printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID: %u/%u\n"),
ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXidEpoch,
ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXid);