| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_controldata/pg_resetxlog "Latest checkpoint's NextXID" format |
| Date: | 2015-12-29 15:15:35 |
| Message-ID: | 31383.1451402135@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBUYWxsw7Nu?= <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/29/2015 01:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 29/12/15 07:14, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> Shouldn't it use "%X/%X", same as e.g. "Prior checkpoint location" and
>>> all the other XIDs?
>> No. The "locations" in the output are WAL locations. Those are
>> customarily printed with %X/%X. But NextXID is a transaction ID, those
>> are printed in decimal, with %u.
> But Joe has a point here.... Others could also be confused if he doubted
> about this.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-12-29 15:38:39 | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-12-29 14:55:41 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |