Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL Log numbering

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL Log numbering
Date: 2001-09-18 12:22:08
Message-ID: 3BA73C70.DD10E4D@postgresql.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > I would have though that after 00000000000000FE would be
> > 0000000000000100, not 0000000100000000.
> 
<snip>
> > Just checked through the Interactive docs (not sure which version of 7.1
> > they are) and says the numbers should be sequential.
> 
> This would seem to be an oversimplification in the docs.

Thanks Tom.

I'll see if I can get the time to generate a patch for a better
explanation.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> 
>                         regards, tom lane

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-18 23:30:07
Subject: Re: Website, mailing list
Previous:From: srinivasDate: 2001-09-18 11:33:58
Subject: a small doubt

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group