On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > Oh. I hadn't looked at the patch, but I had (mis)read what Robert said
>> > to think that you were proposing introducing InvalidCommandId = 0xFFFFFFFF
>> > while leaving FirstCommandId alone. That would make more sense to me as
>> > (1) it doesn't change the interpretation of anything that's (likely to be)
>> > on disk; (2) it allows the check for overflow in CommandCounterIncrement
>> > to not involve recovering from an *actual* overflow. With the horsing
>> > around we've been seeing from the gcc boys lately
>>
>> Ok, I can do it that way. LCR obviously shouldn't care.
>
> It doesn't care to the point that the patch already does exactly what
> you propose. It's just my memory that remembered things differently.
>
> So, a very slightly updated patch attached.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
