Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2019-07-25 00:40:14
Message-ID: 20190725004014.sexudijxr27shqfj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms
> right now. We have looked at adding unsigned integer types in the past
> and it looked like a mess.

I assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just
wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to
immediately do math etc on xids.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-07-25 00:42:30 Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-07-25 00:34:39 Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?