| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs |
| Date: | 2024-09-29 21:31:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNVy6oR9Cu=Gbct+9J2AVGQ5+R-3yH2tbwJ=+UgBswkdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> 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?
Considering the recent feedback. I'm marking the corresponding CF
entry as "Rejected".
Thanks to everyone involved!
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-09-29 22:28:04 | Re: msys inet_pton strangeness |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-29 20:11:23 | Re: Fixing backslash dot for COPY FROM...CSV |