| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2023-03-29 09:32:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNxv9L=nmGJHO+2xBwDUbbKdJrOEBuh7ivPxSi7BhKNLg@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.
Thanks! 0003 LGTM. I'll mark the CF entry as RfC.
> I propose that we try to finish 1 and 2 for v16. And maybe 6. I think
> that's doable. It doesn't have any great user-visible benefits yet, but
> we need to start somewhere.
+1.
However there are only a few days left if we are going to do this
within March CF...
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-03-29 09:44:39 | Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-03-29 09:13:04 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |