On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andres Freund 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 need to be locall
On 2014-06-23 10:45:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andres Freund
> 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 shar
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andres Freund 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 longer str
On 2014-06-23 10:09:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andres Freund
> 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 identifi
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andres Freund 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 referring to my patch
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 s
