Re: [HACKERS] timeline signedness

2013-08-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 16:20 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.08.2013 14:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 21:55 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> WAL timelines are unsigned 32-bit integers everywhere, except the > >> replication parser (replication/repl_gram.y and > >>

Re: [HACKERS] timeline signedness

2013-08-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 13.08.2013 14:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 21:55 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: WAL timelines are unsigned 32-bit integers everywhere, except the replication parser (replication/repl_gram.y and replication/repl_scanner.l) treats them as signed 32-bit integers. It's obvio

Re: [HACKERS] timeline signedness

2013-08-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 21:55 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> WAL timelines are unsigned 32-bit integers everywhere, except the >> replication parser (replication/repl_gram.y and >> replication/repl_scanner.l) treats them as signed 32-bit

Re: [HACKERS] timeline signedness

2013-08-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 21:55 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > WAL timelines are unsigned 32-bit integers everywhere, except the > replication parser (replication/repl_gram.y and > replication/repl_scanner.l) treats them as signed 32-bit integers. It's > obviously a corner case, but it would be prud