Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?
Date
Msg-id 20170606122929.GH14212@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun  6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 6 June 2017 at 12:38, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> In my mind the harder problem is where to find another 32 bits for the
> >> new page header field.  You could convert the header format on-the-fly
> >> if there's free space in the page, but what if there isn't?
> >
> > I guess, we will have to reserve 32 bits in the header. That's much
> > better than increasing tuple header by 32 bits.
> 
> Tom's point is, I think, that we'll want to stay pg_upgrade
> compatible. So when we see a pg10 tuple and want to add a new page
> with a new page header that has an epoch, but the whole page is full
> so there isn't 32 bits left to move tuples "down" the page, what do we
> do?

I guess I am missing something.  If you see an old page version number,
you know none of the tuples are from running transactions so you can
just freeze them all, after consulting the pg_clog.  What am I missing?
If the page is full, why are you trying to add to the page?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces