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

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2019-07-25 01:11:59
Message-ID: CA+hUKGL0TKUm3g8dywe6zVeSJLkaRYet1CgXMsB+F3bXJRJHFA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2019-07-25 01:24:26 [PATCH] Race condition in logical walsender causes long postgresql shutdown delay
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-07-25 00:51:13 Re: On the stability of TAP tests for LDAP