| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ilya Anfimov <ilan(at)tzirechnoy(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Date: | 2022-11-14 18:07:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TOkpJi78A9chR-j0OOMvP6G=uR+scpEKsM4jtw0dK9-3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi hackers,
> Thanks, done!
Dilip Kumar asked a good question in the thread about the 0001..0003
subset [1]. I would like to duplicate it here to make sure it was not
missed by mistake:
"""
Have we measured the WAL overhead because of this patch set? maybe
these particular patches will not impact but IIUC this is ground work
for making xid 64 bit. So each XLOG record size will increase at
least by 4 bytes because the XLogRecord contains the xid.
"""
Do we have an estimate on this?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-11-14 18:11:59 | Re: libpq support for NegotiateProtocolVersion |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-11-14 17:50:48 | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |