|
rahaeli@rahaeli.bsky.social |
way back at the dawn of time, to avoid issues with hitting maximum values for various MySQL types, we made it so comments and posts are numbered per-journal, not sitewide! nobody could *ever* receive more than 16,777,215 comments to their journal, right? 25 years later: lol. lmao.
5 replies 8 reposts 73 likes
|
Doctor Memory
@blank.org
[ View ] |
OH GOD hahahahahah I am so, so sorry. Can you fix it without site-wide downtime at least? Database re-shards are the woooooorst.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Dave Dissents
@dconrad.bsky.social
[ View ] |
24 bits lasted 24 years, eh?
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
niqaeli torres
@niqaeli.bsky.social
[ View ] |
ahahaha oh god, the anonmemes
1 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
non-binary disaster bisexual
@persian-slipper.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I know it is nothing in comparison now, but I am reminded of how CrystalWank broke JournalFen and issued in the maximum number of comments any one post could receive.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
The Wanlorn
@the-wanlorn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
lol our bad
1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes