Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-07-25T01:11:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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 assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just > > wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to > > immediately do math etc on xids. > > Well, we could invent an xid8 type if we want, just don't try to make > it part of the numeric hierarchy (as indeed xid isn't). Yeah, I meant an xid64/xid8/fxid/pg_something/... type that isn't a kind of number. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
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