Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:32:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could for instance keep the high half as tv_sec, while making the low
>> half be something like (tv_usec << 12) | (getpid() & 0xfff). This would
>> restore the intended ability to reverse-engineer the exact cr
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:32:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2013-07-22 15:55:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> And why is that?
>
> > The comment above tells: "while the lower half is the XOR of tv_sec and
> > tv_usec."
>
> Yeah, the code doesn't match the comment; t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2013-07-22 15:55:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> And why is that?
> The comment above tells: "while the lower half is the XOR of tv_sec and
> tv_usec."
Yeah, the code doesn't match the comment; this mistake seems to be
aboriginal.
> I don't think it really matters. th
On 2013-07-22 15:55:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:45 AM, didier wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > in void
> > BootStrapXLOG(void)
> >
> > * to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
> > the
> > * uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while th
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:45 AM, didier wrote:
> Hi
>
> in void
> BootStrapXLOG(void)
>
> * to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
> the
> * uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while the lower half is the
> XOR
> * of tv_sec and tv_usec. This
Hi
in void
BootStrapXLOG(void)
* to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
the
* uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while the lower half is
the XOR
* of tv_sec and tv_usec. This is to ensure that we don't lose
uniqueness
* unnecessari
