On 10/3/08, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hm, I wonder if we should have made the forks use a fork "name" instead of a
> number. It sure would be nicer to have files name 12345.fsm instead of another
> opaque number.
>
> The other reason I thought of this is that if EDB or anyone else uses forks
> for a private purpose then it would avoid the whole issue of conflicts. The
> best option right now would be to set aside a range of values for private
> purposes.
Good idea.
--
marko