On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >>> Yeah, the use of XLogFile to mean something other than, well a file in >>> the xlog, is greatly annoying.. I guess we could change it, but it >>> goes pretty deep in the system so it's not a small change... > >> The whole thing was built around the lack of 64 bit integers. If we bit >> the bullet and changed the whole thing to be just a single 64-bit >> counter, we could probably delete thousands of lines of code. > > Hm. I think "thousands" is an overestimate, but yeah the logic could be > greatly simplified. However, I'm not sure we could avoid breaking the > existing naming convention for WAL files. How much do we care about > that?
Probably not very much, since WAL files aren't portable across major versions anyway. But I don't see why you couldn't keep the naming convention - there's nothing to prevent you from converting a 64-bit integer back into two 32-bit integers if and where needed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
