Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2020-04-17 19:26:46
Message-ID: 20200417192646.GA29439@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Apr-17, Andres Freund wrote:

> Yes? But that type doesn't exist in isolation. Having yet another
> significantly different representation of 64bit xids (as plain 64 bit
> integers, and as some 32/32 epoch/xid split) would make an already
> confusing situation even more complex.

On the contrary -- I think it would clarify a confusing situation.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-04-17 19:49:10 return value from pq_putmessage() is widely ignored
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-04-17 19:16:46 Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?