Re: Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION
Date
Msg-id 88826d2e-476a-420c-8d6a-f4acfef8b57b@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION  (Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION
List pgsql-hackers
On 27/11/2025 18:00, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> While working on a patch to implement 64-bit transaction IDs in
> PostgreSQL, I ran into a small problem. The
> LockApplyTransactionForSession/UnlockApplyTransactionForSession
> functions utilize the SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION macro, which
> assumes XIDs are 32-bits.
> 
> In my case, the transaction IDs are growing twice as large, and we don't
> have enough space to store them. I could simply resize the LOCKTAG
> structure, extending it by 32 bits, but this is not the best solution.
> 
> However, I noticed that the MyDatabaseId field in
> SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION appears unnecessary. As far as I
> understand, the suboid should already uniquely identify the
> subscription. Is the MyDatabaseId field truly necessary? Will only the
> suboid suffice? I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on this.

Even with 64-bit XIDs, you can't have transactions older than 2^31 still 
running, right? So AFAICS you can continue using 32-bit XID in LOCKTAG.

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mircea Cadariu
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_recvlogical: Prevent flushed data from being re-sent after restarting replication
Next
From: David Geier
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?