| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |
| Date: | 2019-07-25 00:42:30 |
| Message-ID: | 9533.1564015350@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms
>> right now. We have looked at adding unsigned integer types in the past
>> and it looked like a mess.
> I assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just
> wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to
> immediately do math etc on xids.
Well, we could invent an xid8 type if we want, just don't try to make
it part of the numeric hierarchy (as indeed xid isn't).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-25 00:51:13 | Re: On the stability of TAP tests for LDAP |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-25 00:40:14 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |