Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2020-04-02T17:33:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Apr-02, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:14 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > > * updated OIDs to avoid collisions > > * added btequalimage to btree/xid8_ops > > Here's the version I'm planning to commit tomorrow, if no one objects. Changes: > > * txid.c renamed to xid8funcs.c > * remaining traces of "txid" replaced various internal identifiers > * s/backwards compatible/backward compatible/ in funcs.sgml (en_GB -> en_US) Hmm, for some reason I had it in my head that we would make these use an "epoch/val" output format rather than raw uint64 values. Are we really going to do it this way? Myself I can convert values easily enough, but I'm not sure this is user-friendly. (If somebody were to tell me that LSNs are going to be straight uint64 values, I would not be happy.) Or maybe it's the other way around -- this is fine for everyone except me -- and we should never expose the epoch as a separate quantity. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Introduce xid8-based functions to replace txid_XXX.
- 4c04be9b05ad 13.0 landed
-
Add SQL type xid8 to expose FullTransactionId to users.
- aeec457de8a8 13.0 landed
-
Replace the former method of determining snapshot xmax --- to wit, calling
- 6bd4f401b0cb 8.3.0 cited