Re: WAL Log numbering

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.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