From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
Date: | 2012-02-02 00:58:42 |
Message-ID: | 1328144272-sup-774@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mié feb 01 21:33:47 -0300 2012:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think it's butt-ugly, but it's only slightly uglier than
> >> relfrozenxid which we're already stuck with. The slight amount of
> >> additional ugliness is that you're going to use an XID column to store
> >> a uint4 that is not an XID - but I don't have a great idea how to fix
> >> that. You could mislabel it as an OID or a (signed) int4, but I'm not
> >> sure that either of those is any better. We could also create an mxid
> >> data type, but that seems like it might be overkill.
> >
> > Well, we're already storing a multixact in Xmax, so it's not like we
> > don't assume that we can store multis in space normally reserved for
> > Xids. What I've been wondering is not how ugly it is, but rather of the
> > fact that we're bloating pg_class some more.
>
> FWIW, users have been known to request uint datatypes; so if this really is a uint perhaps we should just create a uint datatype...
Yeah. This is just for internal consumption, though, not a full-blown
datatype.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-02-02 01:01:27 | heap_tuple_needs_freeze false positive |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-02 00:44:00 | Re: Index-only scan performance regression |