Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGL0TKUm3g8dywe6zVeSJLkaRYet1CgXMsB+F3bXJRJHFA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms > >> right now. We have looked at adding unsigned integer types in the past > >> and it looked like a mess. > > > I assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just > > wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to > > immediately do math etc on xids. > > Well, we could invent an xid8 type if we want, just don't try to make > it part of the numeric hierarchy (as indeed xid isn't). Yeah, I meant an xid64/xid8/fxid/pg_something/... type that isn't a kind of number. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: