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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2020-04-02 19:20:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-04-02 14:33:18 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, for some reason I had it in my head that we would make these use an
>> "epoch/val" output format rather than raw uint64 values.

> Why would we do that? IMO the goal should be to reduce awareness of the
> 32bitness of normal xids from as many places as possible, and treat them
> as an internal space optimization.

If they're just int64s then you don't need special functions to do
things like finding the min or max in a column of them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2020-04-02 19:26:15 Re: backup manifests
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-04-02 19:15:44 Re: Proposal: Expose oldest xmin as SQL function for monitoring