| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs |
| Date: | 2024-09-26 16:39:10 |
| Message-ID: | 330764.1727368750@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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?
I seriously doubt that _age values exceeding INT32_MAX would be
useful, even in the still-extremely-doubtful situation that we
get to true 64-bit XIDs. But if you think we must have that,
we could still use float8 GUCs for them. float8 is exact up
to 2^53 (given IEEE math), and you certainly aren't going to
convince me that anyone needs _age values exceeding that.
For that matter, an imprecise representation of such an age
limit would still be all right wouldn't it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-09-26 16:53:01 | Re: not null constraints, again |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-09-26 15:55:07 | Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs |