Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15

Hi Aleksander Alekseev
I think the xids 32bit transformation project has been dragged on for too long. Huawei's openGauss referenced this patch to implement xids 64bit, and Postgrespro also implemented xids 64bit, which is enough to prove that their worries are redundant.I think postgresql has no reason not to implement xid 64 bit. What about your opinion?

Best whish
________________________________
发件人: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
发送时间: 2022年12月9日 20:49
收件人: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
抄送: adherent postgres <adherent_postgres(at)hotmail(dot)com>; Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>; Chris Travers <chris(at)orioledata(dot)com>; Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
主题: Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15

Hi adherent,

> Robertmhaas said that the project Zheap is dead（https://twitter.com/andy_pavlo/status/1590703943176589312）, which means that we cannot use Zheap to deal with the issue of xid wraparound and dead tuples in tables. The dead tuple issue is not a big deal because I can still use pg_repack to handle, although pg_repack will cause wal log to increase dramatically and may take one or two days to handle a large table. During this time the database can be accessed by external users, but the xid wraparound will cause PostgreSQL to be down, which is a disaster for DBAs. Maybe you are not a DBA, or your are from a small country, Database system tps is very low, so xid32 is enough for your database system , Oracle's scn was also 32bits, however, Oracle realized the issue and changed scn to 64 bits. The transaction id in mysql is 48 bits. MySQL didn't fix the transaction id wraparound problem because they think that 48 bits is enough for the transaction id. This project has been running for almost 1 year and now it is coming to an end. I strongly disagree with your idea of stopping this patch, and I suspect you are a saboteur. I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, as it is not a fundamental way to solve the xid wraparound problem. The PostgreSQL community urgently needs developers who solve problems like this, not bury one' head in the sand

This is not uncommon for people on the mailing list to have
disagreements. This is part of the process, we all are looking for
consensus. It's true that different people have different use cases in
mind and different backgrounds as well. It doesn't mean these use
cases are wrong and/or the experience is irrelevant and/or the
received feedback should be just discarded.

Although I also expressed my disagreement with Chris before, let's not
assume any bad intent and especially sabotage as you put it. (Unless
you have a strong proof of this of course which I doubt you have.) We
want all kinds of feedback to be welcomed here. I'm sure our goal here
is mutual, to make PostgreSQL even better than it is now. The only
problem is that the definition of "better" varies sometimes.

I see you believe that 64-bit XIDs are going to be useful. That's
great! Tell us more about your case and how the patch is going to help
with it. Also, maybe you could test your load with the applied
patchset and tell us whether it makes things better or worse?
Personally I would love hearing this from you.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev