On 16 August 2016 at 20:58, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
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.
Makes sense. I didn't dig back too far in history.
Sounds like you're in favour of the 2nd part of the proposal (not covered by the current patch) then.
I haven't yet done the validation required on the epoch logic btw, and I won't be too surprised if it's a bit off. I'm writing a fast xid burn function for use in testing now. I doubt it'll be fast enough to use in routine regression testing since all those clog pages will still take time. But we'll see. I'd kind of like to be able to avoid all that - advance the xid counter and treat all the old xids as frozen. I don't know or if this is practical within a normal backend though.
Anyway, will follow up with more tests and - probably - a bugfix or three soon.
