Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-07-25T00:34:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2019-07-25 12:20:58 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:06 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> Seems easiest to just add xid_current(), or add a cast from int8 to xid >>> (probably explicit?) that handles the wraparound logic correctly? >> Yeah, I was wondering about that. int8 isn't really the right type, >> since FullTransactionId is unsigned. > For now that doesn't seem that big an impediment... 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 think an explicit cast is a reasonable thing to add, though. regards, tom lane
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