Message-ID: <fd283f0e-af48-b7c1-a286-83c6a43b6a57@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 14:18:30 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Subject: Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
Content-Language: en-US
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>,
 Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANbhV-FE6RUui4+mYdodVTjf2evaDF+emQJQs=xr7y7qXUuM-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANbhV-FE6RUui4+mYdodVTjf2evaDF+emQJQs=xr7y7qXUuM-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fd283f0e-af48-b7c1-a286-83c6a43b6a57%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


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