Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do?
| От | Pavel Borisov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALT9ZEFkKtxqa2=53Rptc+TWD6ovMx7ACWn3tkdZ2r4j1NHKbg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do?
Re: Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi hackers!
Now we have two data types xid and xid8. The first one (xid) makes a numeric ring, and xid8 are monotonous.
As a consequence of [1] xid8 can have min/max functions (committed in [2]), which xid can not have.
When working on 64xid patch [3] we assume that even 64xid's technically can be wraparound-ed, although it's very much unlikely. I wonder what is expected to be with xid8 values at this (unlikely) 64xid wraparound?
When working on 64xid patch [3] we assume that even 64xid's technically can be wraparound-ed, although it's very much unlikely. I wonder what is expected to be with xid8 values at this (unlikely) 64xid wraparound?
What do you think about this? Wouldn't it be better to change xid8 to form a numeric ring like xid? I think it is necessary for any 64-wraparound-enabled implementation of 64xids.
Please feel free to share your thoughts.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-oid.html
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/47d77b18c44f87f8222c4c7a3e2dee6b%40oss.nttdata.com
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACG%3DezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe%3DpyyjVWA%40mail.gmail.com
Please feel free to share your thoughts.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-oid.html
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/47d77b18c44f87f8222c4c7a3e2dee6b%40oss.nttdata.com
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACG%3DezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe%3DpyyjVWA%40mail.gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: