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 20170828230551.GA28346@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?  (Jim Finnerty <jfinnert@amazon.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul  6, 2017 at 07:29:07AM -0700, Jim Finnerty wrote:
> re: "The problem is if you want to delete from such a page.  Then you need to
> update the tuple's xmax and stick the new xid epoch somewhere."

I am coming to this very late, but wouldn't such a row be marked using
our frozen-commited fixed xid so it doesn't matter what the xid epoch is?
I realize with 64-bit xids we don't need to freeze tuples, but we could
still use a frozen-commited fixed xid, see:
#define FrozenTransactionId         ((TransactionId) 2)

--  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: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90