Re: [PATCH] bigint txids vs 'xid' type, new txid_recent(bigint) => xid

On 8/18/16 9:20 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 19 August 2016 at 02:35, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com
> <mailto:Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>> wrote:
> I think we need to either add real types for handling XID/epoch/TXID
> or finally create uint types. It's *way* too easy to screw things up
> the way they are today.
>
> Hm. Large scope increase there. Especially introducing unsigned types.
> There's a reason that hasn't been done already - it's not just copying a
> whole pile of code, it's also defining all the signed/unsigned
> interactions and conversions carefully.

https://github.com/petere/pguint ;-)

> I'm not against adding a 'bigxid' or 'epoch_xid' or something,
> internally a uint64. It wouldn't need all the opclasses, casts, function
> overloads, etc that uint8 would.

That sounds much better.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services