| From: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |
| Date: | 2023-03-20 15:58:00 |
| Message-ID: | CACG=ezaN1FvOrfy1kuq0T4exkkNQ5JZ3pwVWrU0Dn645AKNrwg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
As suggested before by Heikki Linnakangas, I've added a patch for making
2PC transaction state 64-bit.
At first, my intention was to rebuild all twophase interface to use
FullTransactionId. But doing this in a proper
manner would lead to switching from TransactionId to FullTransactionId in
PGPROC and patch become too
big to handle here.
So I decided to keep it simple for now and use wrap logic trick and calc
FullTransactionId on current epoch,
since the span of active xids cannot exceed one epoch at any given time.
Patches 1 and 2 are the same as above.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v57-0002-Use-larger-segment-file-names-for-pg_notify.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.0 KB |
| v57-0003-Make-use-FullTransactionId-in-2PC-filenames.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.9 KB |
| v57-0001-Index-SLRUs-by-64-bit-integers-rather-than-by-32.patch | application/octet-stream | 54.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maxim Orlov | 2023-03-20 16:13:58 | Re: Add SHELL_EXIT_CODE to psql |
| Previous Message | Frédéric Yhuel | 2023-03-20 15:48:59 | Re: Allow parallel plan for referential integrity checks? |