| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Date: | 2012-02-02 00:33:47 |
| Message-ID: | 7854C4C9-8871-4FB0-B737-EA7E7EE56914@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think it's butt-ugly, but it's only slightly uglier than
>> relfrozenxid which we're already stuck with. The slight amount of
>> additional ugliness is that you're going to use an XID column to store
>> a uint4 that is not an XID - but I don't have a great idea how to fix
>> that. You could mislabel it as an OID or a (signed) int4, but I'm not
>> sure that either of those is any better. We could also create an mxid
>> data type, but that seems like it might be overkill.
>
> Well, we're already storing a multixact in Xmax, so it's not like we
> don't assume that we can store multis in space normally reserved for
> Xids. What I've been wondering is not how ugly it is, but rather of the
> fact that we're bloating pg_class some more.
FWIW, users have been known to request uint datatypes; so if this really is a uint perhaps we should just create a uint datatype...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-02 00:44:00 | Re: Index-only scan performance regression |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-02-01 23:48:28 | JSON output functions. |