Re: [PATCH] bigint txids vs 'xid' type, new txid_recent(bigint) => xid - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: [PATCH] bigint txids vs 'xid' type, new txid_recent(bigint) => xid
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HPCAxCGTj-LHiyKtiqqNZTBJ9iTng2HheZ_xLaN1psWQQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [PATCH] bigint txids vs 'xid' type, new txid_recent(bigint) => xid  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] bigint txids vs 'xid' type, new txid_recent(bigint) => xid  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I'm surprised the 32-bit xid was ever exposed to the user, rather than a
> 64-bit epoch-extended xid.

Once upon a time we didn't have epoch counting at all.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to clean up everything to do with
xids so that everything user-facing is epoch-aware. Of course you
don't always have the epoch but if we're careful about where users can
see xids they should never see an xid from an old epoch. That could be
a problem for internal tools like pageinspect or xlogdump but
shouldn't be a problem for any real production api.

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off