Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:27, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > >> The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
> > >
> > > If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up
> > > being Slony is designed to work across a multitude of versions of PG,
> > > and unless this was backported to at least 7.4, it would take a while
> > > (ie when we stopped supporting versions older than it was ported into)
> > > before we would make use of it.
> >
> > [ shrug... ] That's not happening; for one thing the change requires a
> > layout change in pg_control and we have no mechanism to do that without
> > initdb.
>
> I'll take a bit more of a look through the patch and see if it is a real
> boot to use it on those platforms that support it, and that we have a
> suitable way around it on those that don't. But at this point I wouldn't
> hold my breath on that

In one of those 3am lightbulbs I belive I have a way to make use of the 64-bit
XID counter and still maintain the ability to have backwards compatibility.
Is there any chance you could break this patch up into the 2 separate
componenets that Hannu mentions, and rework the XID stuff into
TransactionIdAdvance as per tom's recommendation. And in the meantime I'll
pencil out the slony stuff to utilize this.

>
> > regards, tom lane

--
Darcy Buskermolen
CommandPrompt, Inc.
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
http://www.commandprompt.com