Message-ID: <50CEE946.4070403@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:43:34 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Organization: VMware
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:10.0.10) Gecko/20121027 Icedove/10.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
CC: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: XLByte* usage
References: <20121216141624.GC4683@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<50CED81A.3080400@vmware.com>
	<CABOikdNDCzyXE=oS=gThHr7A_YcSeyYm9TGN46WSSp3PnEp07w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABOikdNDCzyXE=oS=gThHr7A_YcSeyYm9TGN46WSSp3PnEp07w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 17.12.2012 11:04, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>  wrote:
>> On 16.12.2012 16:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that XLRecPtr's are plain 64bit integers what are we supposed to use
>>> in code comparing and manipulating them? There already is plenty example
>>> of both, but I would like new code to go into one direction not two...
>>>
>>> I personally find direct comparisons/manipulations far easier to read
>>> than the XLByte* equivalents.
>>
>> I've still used XLByte* macros, but I agree that plain<  =>  are easier to
>> read. +1 for using<  =>  in new code.
>
> Do we ever see us changing this from 64-bit integers to something else
> ? If so, a macro would be much better.

I don't see us changing it again any time soon. Maybe in 20 years time 
people will start overflowing 2^64 bytes of WAL generated in the 
lifetime of a database, but I don't think we need to start preparing for 
that yet.

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers