Re: XLog changes for 9.3

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 7 June 2012 19:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This seems like nonsense to me. �How many external scripts are likely to
>> know that we skip the FF page? �There might be some, but not many.

> If that is the only change in filenames, then all is forgiven.

Oh, now I see what you're on about.  Yes, I agree that we should
maintain the same formatting of WAL segment file names, even though
it will be rather artificial in the 64-bit-arithmetic world.  The
only externally visible change should be the creation of FF-numbered
files where formerly those were skipped.
        regards, tom lane