Re: XLByte* usage
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XLByte* usage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20121217183010.GA26826@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: XLByte* usage (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-12-17 23:45:51 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee > <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > I probably did not mean increasing that to beyond 64-bit. OTOH I > > wondered if we would ever want to steal a few bits from the LSN field, > > given the numbers you just put out. But it was more of a question than > > objection. > > > > BTW, now that XLogRecPtr is uint64, can't we change the pd_lsn field > to use the same type ? At least the following comment in bufpage.h > looks outdated or at the minimum needs some explanation as why LSN in > the page header needs to split into two 32-bit values. > > 123 /* for historical reasons, the LSN is stored as two 32-bit values. */ > 124 typedef struct > 125 { > 126 uint32 xlogid; /* high bits */ > 127 uint32 xrecoff; /* low bits */ > 128 } PageXLogRecPtr; pg_upgrade'ability. The individual bytes aren't necessarily laid out the same with two such uint32s as with one uint64. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: