| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2024-09-25 18:04:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdspEzhGYWuxHbhDKxadUOAVi+ZhBv8nB=Mduci2-1ORaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Tom!
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with the upthread opinions that we shouldn't do this
> (invent int64 GUCs). I don't think we need the added code bloat
> and risk of breaking user code that isn't expecting this new GUC
> type. We invented the notion of GUC units in part to ensure that
> int32 GUCs could be adapted to handle potentially-large numbers.
> And there's always the fallback position of using a float8 GUC
> if you really feel you need a wider range.
Thank you for your feedback.
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?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florents Tselai | 2024-09-25 18:17:20 | PATCH: jsonpath string methods: lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-25 17:50:30 | Re: src/backend/optimizer/util/plancat.c -> Is this correct English |