| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current |
| Date: | 2019-02-04 05:48:24 |
| Message-ID: | 11774.1549259304@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> Hm. That looks sane to me at quick glance. I am a bit on the edge
> regaring the naming "FullTransactionId", which is actually a 64-bit
> value with a 32-bit XID and a 32-bit epoch. Something like
> TransactionIdWithEpoch or EpochTransactionId sounds a bit better to
> me. My point is that "Full" is too generic for that.
WideTransactionId, maybe? I agree that "Full" seems like a poor
adjective here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-04 05:51:31 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-04 05:46:57 | Re: Synchronous replay take III |