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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, 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: 2019-02-13 13:42:09
Message-ID: 20190213134209.eojban3wmb6ridfd@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-02-13 12:16:33 +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> As a note here, I have worked on projects where there could be 2-week-long
> idle-in-transaction states (no joke, we tuned things to only use virtual
> xids for most of that time), and having an ability to set
> idle-in-transaction timeouts to figures of greater than a month are things
> I could imagine doing. I would certainly favor the idea of 64-big GUC
> variables as a general rule.

How about proposing a patch for it in a new thread?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Dolgov 2019-02-13 13:56:43 Re: libpq compression
Previous Message dataegret 2019-02-13 13:29:59 Re: WAL insert delay settings