On 10/3/08, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Good idea. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
