| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |
| Date: | 2017-08-28 23:05:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20170828230551.GA28346@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 07:29:07AM -0700, Jim Finnerty wrote:
> re: "The problem is if you want to delete from such a page. Then you need to
> update the tuple's xmax and stick the new xid epoch somewhere."
I am coming to this very late, but wouldn't such a row be marked using
our frozen-commited fixed xid so it doesn't matter what the xid epoch is?
I realize with 64-bit xids we don't need to freeze tuples, but we could
still use a frozen-commited fixed xid, see:
#define FrozenTransactionId ((TransactionId) 2)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-29 00:59:45 | Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-08-28 22:56:14 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |