On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:43:59 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] > > But, perhaps the above is naively simplistic. > > It seems rock solid to me. The post pass frees us from *any* > assumptions about ids and timestamps. I meant simplistic in terms of my thought that maybe the scanning-for-max could be done during existing passes rather than in a separate post-pass, just to minimize the performance hit. But it will be much easier to feel confident nothing got missed with a post-pass, so that's probably the way to go as long as the impact's not significant. [snip] > This seems like a good (if unexpected) resolution, one that requires > nothing but the *existing* post-pass. Let me know if I've forgotten > anything :-) No, I think we're good. So we believe Bob's always increasing timestamp is redundant and could be removed, but other than that, I think we're literally unique now :-) Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
