Horton

Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs

Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>

View thread
From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-09-29T21:31:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

> I seriously doubt that _age values exceeding INT32_MAX would be
> useful, even in the still-extremely-doubtful situation that we
> get to true 64-bit XIDs.  But if you think we must have that,
> we could still use float8 GUCs for them.  float8 is exact up
> to 2^53 (given IEEE math), and you certainly aren't going to
> convince me that anyone needs _age values exceeding that.
> For that matter, an imprecise representation of such an age
> limit would still be all right wouldn't it?

Considering the recent feedback. I'm marking the corresponding CF
entry as "Rejected".

Thanks to everyone involved!

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev