Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Serguei Mokhov
Subject Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Date
Msg-id 00bf01c124d4$55fd12c0$5dd9fea9@gunn
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:09 AM


> typedef struct FormData_pg_sequence
> {
> NameData sequence_name;
> int64 last_value;
> #ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED
> int32 pad1;
[snip]
> } FormData_pg_sequence;
> 
> This would work, I think, but my goodness it's an ugly solution.

Is anything wrong with just having two int32 per value for this case?

typedef struct FormData_pg_sequence
{ int32 last_value; int32 pad1;
...
} FormData_pg_sequence;

S.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Reinhard Mueller
Date:
Subject: Re: [gnue-geas] Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Use int8 for int4/int2 aggregate accumulators?