Re: Syntax of transaction identifiers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Syntax of transaction identifiers
Date: 2005-10-03 14:03:21
Message-ID: 21759.1128348201@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Why are the transaction identifiers used in the 2PC commands lexical
> strings rather than identifiers? Shouldn't database objects be
> identifiers and strings be purely data objects? Or is there some
> standard or precedent on that?

I proposed the same awhile back, but it was shot down --- there is
a standard out there somewhere, and it requires strings of 150 or so
characters for GIDs, so identifiers don't work. See the archives.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-10-03 14:06:27 Re: Build Farm: thrush
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-03 13:52:19 Re: [HACKERS] Updated documentation for new sequence binding