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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(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: 2018-03-01 23:07:12
Message-ID: 20180301230712.nxg2u7nm4mtugprx@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-03-02 01:56:00 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-03-02 01:48:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > Also, the last commitfest is already too late for such big changes.
> > > So, I'm marking this RWF.
> >
> > Agreed. Perhaps extract the 64bit GUC patch and track that separately?
> > Seems like something we should just do...
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable. But I didn't notice if there are other users for 64bit
> GUCs besides 64bit xids?

I think there were a couple past occasions where we could've used that,
don't quite recall the details. We're at least not that far away from
the point where various size limits are actually limited by int32
range. And timeouts of ~25 days are long but not entirely unreasonable.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2018-03-01 23:15:37 Re: row filtering for logical replication
Previous Message Euler Taveira 2018-03-01 23:03:42 Re: row filtering for logical replication