Re: lcr v5 - introduction of InvalidCommandId - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: lcr v5 - introduction of InvalidCommandId
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaMEFZQ-gKqxLfkYZKXyOjFnJBh+bfS67AO6svekJQq_Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: lcr v5 - introduction of InvalidCommandId  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: lcr v5 - introduction of InvalidCommandId
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: file_fdw target file ownership
Next
From: "MauMau"
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] strerror() returns ??? in a UTF-8/C database with LC_MESSAGES=non-ASCII