On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>> Yeah, the use of XLogFile to mean something other than, well a file in
>>> the xlog, is greatly annoying.. I guess we could change it, but it
>>> goes pretty deep in the system so it's not a small change...
>
>> The whole thing was built around the lack of 64 bit integers. If we bit
>> the bullet and changed the whole thing to be just a single 64-bit
>> counter, we could probably delete thousands of lines of code.
>
> Hm. I think "thousands" is an overestimate, but yeah the logic could be
> greatly simplified. However, I'm not sure we could avoid breaking the
> existing naming convention for WAL files. How much do we care about
> that?
Probably not very much, since WAL files aren't portable across major
versions anyway. But I don't see why you couldn't keep the naming
convention - there's nothing to prevent you from converting a 64-bit
integer back into two 32-bit integers if and where needed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
