Hi, Tom!
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with the upthread opinions that we shouldn't do this
> (invent int64 GUCs). I don't think we need the added code bloat
> and risk of breaking user code that isn't expecting this new GUC
> type. We invented the notion of GUC units in part to ensure that
> int32 GUCs could be adapted to handle potentially-large numbers.
> And there's always the fallback position of using a float8 GUC
> if you really feel you need a wider range.
Thank you for your feedback.
Do you think we don't need int64 GUCs just now, when 64-bit
transaction ids are far from committable shape? Or do you think we
don't need int64 GUCs even if we have 64-bit transaction ids? If yes,
what do you think we should use for *_age variables with 64-bit
transaction ids?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
