On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Oh. I hadn't looked at the patch, but I had (mis)read what Robert said >> > to think that you were proposing introducing InvalidCommandId = 0xFFFFFFFF >> > while leaving FirstCommandId alone. That would make more sense to me as >> > (1) it doesn't change the interpretation of anything that's (likely to be) >> > on disk; (2) it allows the check for overflow in CommandCounterIncrement >> > to not involve recovering from an *actual* overflow. With the horsing >> > around we've been seeing from the gcc boys lately >> >> Ok, I can do it that way. LCR obviously shouldn't care. > > It doesn't care to the point that the patch already does exactly what > you propose. It's just my memory that remembered things differently. > > So, a very slightly updated patch attached.
Committed. -- 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
