On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-18 12:36:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I actually don't think any of the discussions I was involved in had the
externally visible version of replication identifiers limited to 16bits?
If you are
On 2014-06-23 10:09:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-18 12:36:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I actually don't think any of the discussions I was involved in had the
externally visible version of
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why? Users and other systems only ever see the external ID. Everything
leaving the system is converted to the external form. The short id
basically is only used in shared memory and in wal records. For both
using
On 2014-06-23 10:45:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Why? Users and other systems only ever see the external ID. Everything
leaving the system is converted to the external form. The short id
basically is only
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Oh, great. Somehow I missed the fact that that had been addressed. I
had assumed that we still needed global identifiers in which case I
think they'd need to be 64+ bits (preferably more like 128). If they
only
On 2014-06-18 12:36:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I actually don't think any of the discussions I was involved in had the
externally visible version of replication identifiers limited to 16bits?
If you are referring to my patch, 16bits was just the width of the
*internal* name that should
