From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution |
Date: | 2000-11-05 20:14:24 |
Message-ID: | 3A05BFA0.5187B713@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing writes:
>
> > > The first thought that comes to mind is that XIDs should be promoted to
> > > eight bytes. However there are several practical problems with this:
> > > * portability --- I don't believe long long int exists on all the
> > > platforms we support.
> >
> > I suspect that gcc at least supports long long on all OS-s we support
>
> Uh, we don't want to depend on gcc, do we?
I suspect that we do on many platforms (like *BSD, Linux and Win32).
What platforms we currently support don't have functional gcc ?
> But we could make the XID a struct of two 4-byte integers, at the obvious
> increase in storage size.
And a (hopefully) small performance hit on operations when defined as
macros,
and some more for less data fitting in cache.
what operations do we need to be defined ?
will >, <, ==, !=, >=, <== and ++ be enough ?
-------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-11-05 20:58:34 | Re: Unicode conversion (Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql (configure.in)) |
Previous Message | Adriaan Joubert | 2000-11-05 18:52:25 | Re: Re: BIT/BIT VARYING status |