Hm, I wonder if we should have made the forks use a fork "name" instead of a number. It sure would be nicer to have files name 12345.fsm instead of another opaque number.
The other reason I thought of this is that if EDB or anyone else uses forks for a private purpose then it would avoid the whole issue of conflicts. The best option right now would be to set aside a range of values for private purposes. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
