| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds] |
| Date: | 2008-03-10 16:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | 87bq5ma51p.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> Hi,
>
> what's your opinion on this?
> I saw response only from Alvaro on the -patches list.
I don't understand. The patch only affects configuration and SQL data type
code. It doesn't actually store the 64-bit commandid anywhere which would be
the actual hard part.
Do "phantom" command ids mean this all just works magically? Ie, the limit of
2^32 <cmin,cmax> pairs is still there but as long as you don't have to store
more than that many you get to have 2^64 raw ephemeral commandids?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-10 16:59:42 | Detecting large-file support in configure |
| Previous Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2008-03-10 16:17:18 | [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds] |