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

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: btfujiitkp <btfujiitkp(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2020-01-28 05:05:24
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKAtuJsqEMMc6VASgD=YtkM-BUqJYgZi6DAOknaBfT5Ag@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:56 AM Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/30/19 5:14 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 12:22 PM Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> These two patches (v3) no longer apply cleanly. Could you please
> >> rebase?
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > Thanks. Here's v4.
>
> Thanks, Thomas.
>
> The new patches apply cleanly and pass 'installcheck'.

I rebased, fixed the "xid_snapshot_xip" problem spotted by Takao Fujii
that I had missed earlier, updated a couple of error messages to refer
to the new names (even when using the old functions) and ran
check-world and some simple manual tests on an -m32 build just to be
paranoid. Here are the versions of these patches I'd like to commit.
Does anyone want to object to the txid/xid8 type punning scheme or
long term txid-sunsetting plan?

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-SQL-type-xid8-to-expose-FullTransactionId-to--v5.patch application/octet-stream 14.4 KB
0002-Introduce-xid8-variants-of-the-txid_XXX-fmgr-func-v5.patch application/octet-stream 33.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-01-28 05:36:33 Some incorrect option sizes for PQconninfoOption in libpq
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-01-28 05:01:55 Re: pause recovery if pitr target not reached