Tom Lane wrote:
>"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
>
>
>>I don't know either, but this brings up another question. Stats
>>wraparound.
>>
>We'll all be safely dead, for one thing ;-)
>
>At one update per nanosecond, it'd take approximately 300 years to wrap
>a 64-bit counter. Somehow I don't have a problem with the idea that
>Postgres would need to be rebooted that often. We'd want to fix the
>32-bit nature of XIDs long before 64-bit stats counters get to be a
>real-world issue ...
>
*sigh* Sorry, I should have done a little math before I asked that
question.....
