On 30 December 2015 at 00:17, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 12/29/2015 07:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Yeah. Use of the same x/y notation with two different bases seems like > > a recipe for confusion. It's probably too late to do anything about > > this for 9.5, but I'd be +1 for adopting Jose's suggestion or some > > other formatting tweak in HEAD. > > I made the "%u/%u" -> "%u:%u" change in the controldata patch I just > posted, but I suppose I should commit that separately. Any complaints > about that?
There is already long precedent about how to represent an XID with an epoch... and it is neither of those two formats. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-info.html "Table 9-63. Transaction IDs and Snapshots" "The internal transaction ID type (xid) is 32 bits wide and wraps around every 4 billion transactions. However, these functions export a 64-bit format that is extended with an "epoch" counter so it will not wrap around during the life of an installation." -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
