Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...

And he who needs that kind of long term row identifiers would
be better off with 8-byte sequences anyway - IMNSVHO.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com