Hi Greg, On Thursday 16 December 2010 13:32:46 Greg Smith wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On Thursday 02 December 2010 22:21:37 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of sáb oct 30 05:49:21 -0300 2010: > >>> Ill set this up for the next commitfest, I don't think I can do much > >>> more without further input. > >> > >> Are you reserving about 20 bits for levels, and 12 for flags? Given the > >> relatively scarce growth of levels, I think we could live with about 6 > >> or 7 bits for level, rest for flags. > > > > The number I picked was absolutely arbitrary I admit. Neither did I think > > it would be likely to see more levels, nor did I forsee many flags, so I > > just chose some number I liked in that certain moment ;-) > This bit of detail seems to have died down without being resolved; > bumping it to add a reminder about that. > I count four issues of various sizes left with this patch right now: > > 1) This levels bit If we go with that approach I think the amount of bits reserved for both is big enough to never be reached in reality. Also there is no backward-compat issue in changing as were not ABI stable between major releases anyway...
> 2) Can the approach used be simplified or the code made cleaner? > 3) What is the interaction with Hot Standby error handling? It works for me - not to say that independent testing wouldn't be good though. > 4) The usual code formatting nitpicking, Kevin mentioned braces being an > issue Will redo if the other issues are cleared. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
