Re: [BUGS] WAL Log numbering

2001-09-22 Thread Justin Clift
Hi Bruce, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Attached is a patch that changes "sequential" to "ever-increasing". That's a good idea. :) I was trying to think of the right wording, but I could only think of sentences that were too complex. That one's nice and simple. Regards and best wishes, Justin C

Re: [BUGS] WAL Log numbering

2001-09-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Attached is a patch that changes "sequential" to "ever-increasing". > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would have though that after 00FE would be > > 0100, not 0001. > > This is the intended behavior, I believe. The low-order half is a > 32-bit

Re: [BUGS] WAL Log numbering

2001-09-18 Thread Justin Clift
Tom Lane wrote: > > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would have though that after 00FE would be > > 0100, not 0001. > > > Just checked through the Interactive docs (not sure which version of 7.1 > > they are) and says the numbers should be seque

Re: [BUGS] WAL Log numbering

2001-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would have though that after 00FE would be > 0100, not 0001. This is the intended behavior, I believe. The low-order half is a 32-bit byte offset DIV XLogSegSize --- we could compress out the zero bits, but only at