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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa0Owym0O9wKH1rGmL2tLmUn_YaMN72G8Zms6ZX4cqmtQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:13 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Given that txid_current() "always" has been a plain 64 bit integer, and
> the various txid_* functions always have returned 64 bit integers, I
> really don't think arguing for some 32bit/32bit situation now makes
> sense.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, but the reality is
that there are many places where 32-bit XIDs are going to be showing
up for years to come. With the format printed as a raw 64-bit
quantity, people troubleshooting stuff are going to spend a lot of
time figuring what x%2^32 is. And I can't do that in my head. So I
think saying that the proposal does not makes sense is a gross
overstatement. It may not be what we want to do. But it definitely
would make sense.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: spin_delay() for ARM
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?