public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Maxim Orlov <[email protected]>
To: wenhui qiu <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:20:53 +0300
Message-ID: <CACG=ezYokoiumOFnqUfg_ffHD5s8T+6iHYfzKLfa=QQ-1pNrBg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGjGUAKO1GCzG5wBMt5RosWo0PatgFpYY=Gjgt77tN2brNe=Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACG=ezaWg7_nt-8ey4aKv2w9LcuLthHknwCawmBgEeTnJrJTcw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGjGUAKO1GCzG5wBMt5RosWo0PatgFpYY=Gjgt77tN2brNe=Bg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 12:37, Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is really a bug fix. It didn't matter when TransactionId and
> MultiXactOffset were both typedefs of uint32, but it was always wrong.
> The argument name 'xid' is also misleading.
>
> I think there are some more like that, MXOffsetToFlagsBitShift for example.
Yeah, I always thought so too. I believe, this is just a copy-paste. You
mean, it is worth creating a separate CF
entry for these fixes?
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 16:03, Andrey M. Borodin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> BTW as a side note... I see lot's of casts to (unsigned long long), can't
> we just cast to MultiXactOffset?
>
Actually, first versions of the 64xid patch set have such a cast to types
TransactionID, MultiXact and so on. But,
after some discussions, we are switched to unsigned long long cast.
Unfortunately, I could not find an exact link
for that discussion. On the other hand, such a casting is already used
throughout the code. So, just for the
sake of the consistency, I would like to stay with these casts.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 16:03, wenhui qiu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Maxim Orlov
> Thank you so much for your tireless work on this. Increasing the WAL
> size by a few bytes should have very little impact with today's disk
> performance(Logical replication of this feature wal log is also increased a
> lot, logical replication is a milestone new feature, and the community has
> been improving the logical replication of functions),I believe removing
> troubled postgresql Transaction ID Wraparound was also a milestone new
> feature adding a few bytes is worth it!
>
I'm 100% agree. Maybe, I should return to this approach and find some
benefits for having FXIDs in WAL.
view thread (21+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
In-Reply-To: <CACG=ezYokoiumOFnqUfg_ffHD5s8T+6iHYfzKLfa=QQ-1pNrBg@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox