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: 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 00:42:30
Message-ID: 9533.1564015350@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 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just
> wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to
> immediately do math etc on xids.

Well, we could invent an xid8 type if we want, just don't try to make
it part of the numeric hierarchy (as indeed xid isn't).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-07-25 00:51:13 Re: On the stability of TAP tests for LDAP
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-07-25 00:40:14 Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?