| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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>, 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 17:33:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa0Owym0O9wKH1rGmL2tLmUn_YaMN72G8Zms6ZX4cqmtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:13 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Given that txid_current() "always" has been a plain 64 bit integer, and
> the various txid_* functions always have returned 64 bit integers, I
> really don't think arguing for some 32bit/32bit situation now makes
> sense.
I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, but the reality is
that there are many places where 32-bit XIDs are going to be showing
up for years to come. With the format printed as a raw 64-bit
quantity, people troubleshooting stuff are going to spend a lot of
time figuring what x%2^32 is. And I can't do that in my head. So I
think saying that the proposal does not makes sense is a gross
overstatement. It may not be what we want to do. But it definitely
would make sense.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-17 17:45:18 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-17 17:24:09 | Re: spin_delay() for ARM |