Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tianzhou Chen <tianzhouchen(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?
Date: 2017-06-07 16:49:23
Message-ID: 20170607164923.wzq2almkfuan7wr2@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-06-07 07:49:00 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Instead of adding a second 64 bit counter for multixacts, how about
> first implementing something like TED which gets rid of multixacts (and
> freezing thereof) altogether?

-1 - that seems like a too high barrier. We've punted on improvements on
this because of CSN, xid-lsn ranges, and at some point we're going to
have to make pragmatic choices, rather than strive for something more ideal.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Shaplov 2017-06-07 16:59:22 Re: pgbench tap tests & minor fixes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-06-07 16:44:19 Re: A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()