Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Date: 2025-12-11 20:05:24
Message-ID: 202512110804.hmukvd7jna34@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2025-Dec-11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> That's a great question and I've been wondering about it myself. It goes all
> the way to the initial commit where multixacts were introduced, and I don't
> see any particular reason for it even back then. Even in the very first
> version of multixact.c, IMO it would've been simpler to have the writer
> handle the wraparound.
>
> Álvaro, would you happen to remember?

Sorry, I have no recollections of the reason why it was done this way.

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré
voy a acabar con todos (bis) / con todos los humanos acabaré ¡acabaré! (Bender)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-12-11 20:22:07 Re: DOCS - Clarify the publication 'publish_via_partition_root' default value.
Previous Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-12-11 20:04:15 Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY