From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
To: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 14:18:30 +0900
Message-ID: <fd283f0e-af48-b7c1-a286-83c6a43b6a57@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANbhV-FE6RUui4+mYdodVTjf2evaDF+emQJQs=xr7y7qXUuM-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANbhV-FE6RUui4+mYdodVTjf2evaDF+emQJQs=xr7y7qXUuM-A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2022/01/06 19:24, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 13:19, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your opinions are very much welcome!
>
> This is a review of the Int64 options patch,
> "v6-0001-Add-64-bit-GUCs-for-xids.patch"
Do we really need to support both int32 and int64 options? Isn't it enough to replace the existing int32 option with int64 one? Or how about using string-type option for very large number like 64-bit XID, like it's done for recovery_target_xid?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com, orlovmg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
In-Reply-To: <fd283f0e-af48-b7c1-a286-83c6a43b6a57@oss.nttdata.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox