| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(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: | 2019-07-25 00:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | 9204.1564014879@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-07-25 12:20:58 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:06 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>> Seems easiest to just add xid_current(), or add a cast from int8 to xid
>>> (probably explicit?) that handles the wraparound logic correctly?
>> Yeah, I was wondering about that. int8 isn't really the right type,
>> since FullTransactionId is unsigned.
> For now that doesn't seem that big an impediment...
Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms
right now. We have looked at adding unsigned integer types in the past
and it looked like a mess.
I think an explicit cast is a reasonable thing to add, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-25 00:40:14 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-25 00:27:03 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |