On 12/29/2015 07:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah. Use of the same x/y notation with two different bases seems like > a recipe for confusion. It's probably too late to do anything about > this for 9.5, but I'd be +1 for adopting Jose's suggestion or some > other formatting tweak in HEAD.
I made the "%u/%u" -> "%u:%u" change in the controldata patch I just posted, but I suppose I should commit that separately. Any complaints about that?
There is already long precedent about how to represent an XID with an epoch... and it is neither of those two formats.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-info.html "Table 9-63. Transaction IDs and Snapshots" "The internal transaction ID type (xid) is 32 bits wide and wraps around every 4 billion transactions. However, these functions export a 64-bit format that is extended with an "epoch" counter so it will not wrap around during the life of an installation."
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
