| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Evgeny Voropaev <evgeny(dot)voropaev(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Date: | 2026-02-08 01:27:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobvWPygrBnh+rptuZoAv0=6TX3ZdniWnVSKGE9z_GPLcA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 5:57 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 25/11/2025 08:12, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> > -typedef uint32 TransactionId;
> > +typedef uint64 TransactionId;
>
> I'm not sure I'm on board with this, BTW. My hunch is this'll be a much
> smaller patch if you mostly stick to 32-bit representation in memory.
We introduced FullTransactionId -- and a lot of supporting
infrastructure -- for cases where we do want 64-bit XIDs in memory, so
I would say redefining TransactionId to be the same thing makes no
sense at all. There might be more places where we want to replace
TransactionId with FullTransactionId, but flattening the two together
can't possibly be the right thing.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2026-02-08 01:30:41 | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-02-07 23:44:05 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |