Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 6 June 2017 at 12:13, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> What happens when the epoch is so low that the rest of the XID does
>> not fit in 32bits of tuple header? Or such a case should never arise?
>
> Storing an epoch implies that rows can't have (xmin,xmax) different by
> more than one epoch. So if you're updating/deleting an extremely old
> tuple you'll presumably have to set xmin to FrozenTransactionId if it
> isn't already, so you can set a new epoch and xmax.

If the page has multiple such tuples, updating one tuple will mean
updating headers of other tuples as well? This means that those tuples
need to be locked for concurrent scans? May be not, since such tuples
will be anyway visible to any concurrent scans and updating xmin/xmax
doesn't change the visibility. But we might have to prevent multiple
updates to the xmin/xmax because of concurrent updates on the same
page.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company