Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> Yeah, the use of XLogFile to mean something other than, well a file in
>> the xlog, is greatly annoying.. I guess we could change it, but it
>> goes pretty deep in the system so it's not a small change...
> The whole thing was built around the lack of 64 bit integers. If we bit
> the bullet and changed the whole thing to be just a single 64-bit
> counter, we could probably delete thousands of lines of code.
Hm. I think "thousands" is an overestimate, but yeah the logic could be
greatly simplified. However, I'm not sure we could avoid breaking the
existing naming convention for WAL files. How much do we care about
that?
regards, tom lane