Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> I kinda wonder if we shouldn't just track nextXid as a 64bit integer
>> internally, instead of bothering with tracking the epoch
>> separately. Then we can "just" truncate it in the cases where it's
>> stored in space constrained places etc.
> This sounds reasonable to me, at least, but I've not been in these
> depths much.
+1 ... I think the reason it's like that is simply that nobody's revisited
the XID generator since we decided to require 64-bit integer support.
We'd need this for support of true 64-bit XIDs, too, though I'm unsure
whether that project is going anywhere anytime soon. In any case it
seems like a separable subset of that work.
regards, tom lane
