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: 2019-12-01 01:14:03
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKPDxixOrf5VzF2g-6cQz=c4rVDhwHVOZYZeO6vVzPDvw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-SQL-type-xid8-to-expose-FullTransactionId-to--v4.patch application/octet-stream 13.9 KB
0002-Introduce-xid8-variants-of-the-txid_XXX-fmgr-func-v4.patch application/octet-stream 30.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-12-01 01:47:53 Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2019-12-01 01:13:31 Protocol problem with GSSAPI encryption?