Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YHQjuRP=ER4=BkW2o8vxxactdbfkkgR5WkzXoOvVXHbmQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 June 2017 at 12:13, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

> What happens when the epoch is so low that the rest of the XID does
> not fit in 32bits of tuple header? Or such a case should never arise?

Storing an epoch implies that rows can't have (xmin,xmax) different by
more than one epoch. So if you're updating/deleting an extremely old
tuple you'll presumably have to set xmin to FrozenTransactionId if it
isn't already, so you can set a new epoch and xmax.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump issues
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Minor fix for EventCacheLookup()