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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Date
Msg-id 17812.997802908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Serguei Mokhov" <sa_mokho@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
>> 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?

Well, we do want it to be int64 on machines where int64 is properly
defined.  Or are you suggesting

#ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTEDint32 last_value;int32 pad1;
#elseint64 last_value;
#endif

That does seem marginally more robust, now that you mention it...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Next
From: Dave Blasby
Date:
Subject: Forcing GiST index to be used