Horton

Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-09-25T18:04:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi, Tom!

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with the upthread opinions that we shouldn't do this
> (invent int64 GUCs).  I don't think we need the added code bloat
> and risk of breaking user code that isn't expecting this new GUC
> type.  We invented the notion of GUC units in part to ensure that
> int32 GUCs could be adapted to handle potentially-large numbers.
> And there's always the fallback position of using a float8 GUC
> if you really feel you need a wider range.

Thank you for your feedback.
Do you think we don't need int64 GUCs just now, when 64-bit
transaction ids are far from committable shape?  Or do you think we
don't need int64 GUCs even if we have 64-bit transaction ids?  If yes,
what do you think we should use for *_age variables with 64-bit
transaction ids?

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase