Re: Support for XLogRecPtr in expand_fmt_string?

On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I would rather get rid of this %X/%X notation.  I know we have all grown
> to like it, but it's always been a workaround.  We're now making the
> move to simplify this whole business by saying, the WAL location is an
> unsigned 64-bit number -- which everyone can understand -- but then why
> is it printed in some funny format?

We should take care that whatever format we pick can be easily matched to a WAL file name.  So a 64-bit number printed
as16 hex digits would perhaps be OK, but a 64-bit number printed in base 10 would be a large usability regression. 

Personally, I'm not convinced we should change anything at all.  It's not that easy to visually parse a string of many
digits;a little punctuation in the middle is not a bad thing. 

...Robert