| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>,Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>,Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current |
| Date: | 2019-02-04 06:21:50 |
| Message-ID: | F6FA5A92-FAC7-4F45-8923-75859B5EAB63@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On February 4, 2019 6:43:44 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:58:02PM +1100, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> If there are no objections, I'm planning to do a round of testing and
>> commit this shortly.
>
>Hm. That looks sane to me at quick glance. I am a bit on the edge
>regaring the naming "FullTransactionId", which is actually a 64-bit
>value with a 32-bit XID and a 32-bit epoch. Something like
>TransactionIdWithEpoch or EpochTransactionId sounds a bit better to
>me. My point is that "Full" is too generic for that.
I'm not a fan of names with epoch in it - these are the real transaction IDs now. Conflating them with the until-now inferred epochs sounds like a bad idea to me. We IMO should just treat the new type as a 64bit uint, and the 32bit as a truncated version. Like, we could just add 64 as a prefix.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-04 06:28:35 | Commit Fest 2019-01 is now closed |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-04 06:21:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order? |