Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mié feb 01 21:33:47 -0300 2012:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think it's butt-ugly, but it's only slightly uglier than
> >> relfrozenxid which we're already stuck with. The slight amount of
> >> additional ugliness is that you're going to use an XID column to store
> >> a uint4 that is not an XID - but I don't have a great idea how to fix
> >> that. You could mislabel it as an OID or a (signed) int4, but I'm not
> >> sure that either of those is any better. We could also create an mxid
> >> data type, but that seems like it might be overkill.
> >
> > Well, we're already storing a multixact in Xmax, so it's not like we
> > don't assume that we can store multis in space normally reserved for
> > Xids. What I've been wondering is not how ugly it is, but rather of the
> > fact that we're bloating pg_class some more.
>
> FWIW, users have been known to request uint datatypes; so if this really is a uint perhaps we should just create a
uintdatatype...
Yeah. This is just for internal consumption, though, not a full-blown
datatype.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
