Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Horst Herb <hherb(at)malleenet(dot)net(dot)au>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2
Date: 2001-08-14 01:35:05
Message-ID: 14318.997752905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Horst Herb <hherb(at)malleenet(dot)net(dot)au> writes:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2001 02:25, you wrote:
>> I still think that expanding transaction IDs (XIDs) to 8 bytes is no help.

> But what about all of us who need to establish a true long term audit trail?
> For us, still the most elegant solution would be a quasi unlimited supply of
> unique row identifiers. 64 bit would be a huge help (and will be ubiquitous
> in a few years time anyway).

Uh, that has nothing to do with transaction identifiers ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mlw 2001-08-14 02:02:42 OID unsigned long long
Previous Message Horst Herb 2001-08-14 01:03:30 Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2