From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: problem with casts dump/restore |
Date: | 2005-01-11 20:45:29 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A75A8@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
> > The reason why I did that to begin with was to be able to do some
> > in-query processing on a xid. Is it intentional that oid has a
built in
> > cast to integer and xid does not?
>
> I'm not sure how intentional it is, but doing integer arithmetic on
XIDs
> seems pretty fraught with peril to me. The comparison semantics on
XIDs
> are quite unlike normal integer comparisons.
>
> regards, tom lane
Right. Well, my reasons for doing this were pretty unusual. I
'borrowed' the transaction column of pg_lock_status() so that it
returned the block# from the locktag. Since this value for user locks
is application defined, it's natural to do something with it, bit
shifting it in this case.
I guess maybe this whole approach is a bad idea...maybe the best way to
return user lock information would be to make a separate function,
pg_user_lock_status() or something like that. Anyways, thanks for
taking the time to look at it.
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Hansen | 2005-01-11 20:48:28 | Re: [HACKERS] problem with casts dump/restore |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-01-11 20:15:41 | PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5 |