Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Aleksander Alekseev
Subject Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
Date
Msg-id CAJ7c6TNVy6oR9Cu=Gbct+9J2AVGQ5+R-3yH2tbwJ=+UgBswkdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

> I seriously doubt that _age values exceeding INT32_MAX would be
> useful, even in the still-extremely-doubtful situation that we
> get to true 64-bit XIDs.  But if you think we must have that,
> we could still use float8 GUCs for them.  float8 is exact up
> to 2^53 (given IEEE math), and you certainly aren't going to
> convince me that anyone needs _age values exceeding that.
> For that matter, an imprecise representation of such an age
> limit would still be all right wouldn't it?

Considering the recent feedback. I'm marking the corresponding CF
entry as "Rejected".

Thanks to everyone involved!

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing backslash dot for COPY FROM...CSV
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: msys inet_pton strangeness