Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 13:35:16 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: list of TransactionIds
Message-ID: <202205151135.tdtcsblw3g63@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+J5MgNYWvJdogK2_+9pPni8fQ1czO38LOdsPnrFrch+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202205151135.tdtcsblw3g63%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-May-14, Amit Kapila wrote:

> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 1:57 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > We didn't have any use of TransactionId as members of List, until
> > RelationSyncEntry->streamed_txns was introduced (464824323e57, pg14).
> > It's currently implemented as a list of int.  This is not wrong at
> > present, but it may soon be, and I'm sure it rubs some people the wrong
> > way.
> >
> > But is the rubbing way wrong enough to add support for TransactionId in
> > pg_list.h, including, say, T_XidList?
> 
> +1. I don't know if we have a need for this at other places but I feel
> it is a good idea to make its current use better.

I hesitate to add this the day just before beta.  This is already in
pg14, so maybe it's not a big deal if pg15 remains the same for the time
being.  Or we can change it for beta2.  Or we could just punt until
pg16.  Any preferences?

(Adding this to pg14 seems out of the question.  It's probably okay
ABI-wise to add a new node tag at the end of the list, but I'm not sure
it's warranted.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No deja de ser humillante para una persona de ingenio saber
que no hay tonto que no le pueda enseñar algo." (Jean B. Say)