Re: [pcp] Proposal for handling dynamic metric names (and hence dynamic metrics)

[Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:30:13AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > > And having a 'pad' field in the middle of a structure seems kind
> > > of funky, but I can see the reasoning for wanting it there. Maybe
> > > just use up the two existing pad bits and call it 'flags'? (with
> > > room for three more flag values in the future, one of which could
> > > be to flag an extended range of domain values).
> > Hmm, I'd be more inclined to extend "domain" now - we've used up
> > more than half the available domain numbers already, so this seems
> > like the most useful way to use that bit IMO (256 numbers looks a
> > tad small to me, nowadays, whereas 512 would buy alot of headroom).
> Yeah, I agree with this.  We might as well take this step now to leave
> plenty of room for growth.
With the int flags:2 approach, we'd still have one unused flag combo
available for future use. With the domain extension, we'll have zilch.
Probably should've made the darn things uint64 in the first place!

Just a thought :) I'll go with the domain extension.

Cheers