On 4-Sep-07, at 12:43 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
I was playing around a bit on the weekend, yes. Since neither Matt nor Ask have cried out in horror on what I did,
FWIW I didn't object simply because it seems so pointless with everyone having such conflicting ideas about what this should all be about.
Honestly I'd be much happier with the timestamp being the time of the connection. I have no idea why we want an "id" for the times we're outside of a connection/transaction. The idea being that if you're writing the file to disk you can use the transaction id as the filename and it will be guaranteed unique, but also contain a timestamp-like component.
But frankly if we're going to keep going around in circles on the implementation I'd rather just concede.
Matt.
