Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKAtuJsqEMMc6VASgD=YtkM-BUqJYgZi6DAOknaBfT5Ag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:56 AM Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/19 5:14 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 12:22 PM Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> These two patches (v3) no longer apply cleanly.  Could you please
> >> rebase?
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > Thanks.  Here's v4.
>
> Thanks, Thomas.
>
> The new patches apply cleanly and pass 'installcheck'.

I rebased, fixed the "xid_snapshot_xip" problem spotted by Takao Fujii
that I had missed earlier, updated a couple of error messages to refer
to the new names (even when using the old functions) and ran
check-world and some simple manual tests on an -m32 build just to be
paranoid.  Here are the versions of these patches I'd like to commit.
Does anyone want to object to the txid/xid8 type punning scheme or
long term txid-sunsetting plan?
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: pause recovery if pitr target not reached
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Some incorrect option sizes for PQconninfoOption in libpq