Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date
Msg-id 20200402173318.GA29293@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Apr-02, Thomas Munro wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:14 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > * updated OIDs to avoid collisions
> > * added btequalimage to btree/xid8_ops
> 
> Here's the version I'm planning to commit tomorrow, if no one objects.  Changes:
> 
> * txid.c renamed to xid8funcs.c
> * remaining traces of "txid" replaced various internal identifiers
> * s/backwards compatible/backward compatible/ in funcs.sgml (en_GB -> en_US)

Hmm, for some reason I had it in my head that we would make these use an
"epoch/val" output format rather than raw uint64 values.  Are we really
going to do it this way?  Myself I can convert values easily enough, but
I'm not sure this is user-friendly.  (If somebody were to tell me that
LSNs are going to be straight uint64 values, I would not be happy.)

Or maybe it's the other way around -- this is fine for everyone except
me -- and we should never expose the epoch as a separate quantity.  

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: backup manifests
Next
From: Alex Malek
Date:
Subject: Re: bad wal on replica / incorrect resource manager data checksum inrecord / zfs