Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Yeah, I meant an xid64/xid8/fxid/pg_something/... type that isn't a
> kind of number.

I played around with an xid8 type over here (not tested much yet, in
particular not tested on 32 bit box):

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGKbQtX8E5TEdcZaYhTxqLqrvcpN1Vjb7eCu2bz5EACZbw%40mail.gmail.com

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com