Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?
Date: 2021-03-26 04:01:05
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJeQKKN4x-tnfjTik1v1C2HCh9pDr5_R6HJWMgt_-6nJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:57 AM David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 1/22/21 6:46 PM, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
> > First 3 patches derived from the original 64-bit xid patch set by Alexander Korotkov
>
> The patches no longer apply
> (http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2960.log), so marked Waiting on Author.
>
> I also removed the PG14 target since this is a fresh patch set after a
> long hiatus with no new review.

Hi Jim,

I just wanted to say that I'm definitely interested in progress in
this area, and I'm sure many others are too. Let's talk again about
incremental steps in the PG15 cycle. The reason for lack of responses
on this thread is most likely due to being at the business end of the
PG14 cycle.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2021-03-26 04:14:44 Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-03-26 03:55:11 Re: Logical Replication - improve error message while adding tables to the publication in check_publication_add_relation