Received: by 10.151.13.9 with SMTP id q9mr1044123ybi.19.1242227089367;
        Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <m...@twitter.com>
Received: from mail-gx0-f159.google.com (mail-gx0-f159.google.com [209.85.217.159])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 16si9483gxk.5.2009.05.13.08.04.49;
        Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of m...@twitter.com designates 209.85.217.159 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.159;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of m...@twitter.com designates 209.85.217.159 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=m...@twitter.com
Received: by mail-gx0-f159.google.com with SMTP id 3so1362609gxk.17
        for <twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.83.2 with SMTP id g2mr881910agb.1.1242227088834;
        Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <m...@twitter.com>
Received: from ?192.168.1.126? ([66.213.194.170])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 17sm141873agd.26.2009.05.13.08.04.46
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <44374D7F-BECA-4B09-9221-AA870D654245@twitter.com>
From: Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com>
To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <17dbb05b0905130759y10eabd8duac9c174c6785869c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.4)
Subject: Re: [twitter-dev] Re: Status ID closing in on maximum unsigned  integer
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:44 -0700
References: <5078bf1c-bec4-417a-8be5-bc48317cb4d0@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <a05bbec9-a032-4264-a936-6851c0c23c0f@o27g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <17dbb05b0905130759y10eabd8duac9c174c6785869c@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.4)

Hi Chad,

     They will continue to increment. This was, as you assumed, just a =20=

friendly reminder.

Thanks;
  =96 Matt Sanford / @mzsanford
      Twitter Dev

On May 13, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Chad Etzel wrote:

>
> I'm assuming this is just a friendly warning to developers... and that
> the status IDs will continue to monotonically increase past (2^31 -
> 1), i.e. not rollover?
>
> -Chad
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> =20
> wrote:
>>
>> Make that *signed* integer. Writing too many emails at once, sorry.
>>
>> On May 13, 7:38 am, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>     Just a quick heads up. Our status id is fast approaching the
>>> maximum unsigned integer value. Based on all of the feedback on
>>> scaling I've received from this list I'm assuming everyone will be
>>> fine. One thing to check is your table definitions =85 no amount of
>>> interpreted language will save you from that. I think the tipping
>>> point will be this afternoon sometime but with the planned =20
>>> maintenance
>>> it might end up being later in the day.
>>>
>>> Thanks;
>>>   =97 Matt Sanford / @mzsanford