Hi, Tom! On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > FWIW, I agree with the upthread opinions that we shouldn't do this > (invent int64 GUCs). I don't think we need the added code bloat > and risk of breaking user code that isn't expecting this new GUC > type. We invented the notion of GUC units in part to ensure that > int32 GUCs could be adapted to handle potentially-large numbers. > And there's always the fallback position of using a float8 GUC > if you really feel you need a wider range.
Thank you for your feedback. Do you think we don't need int64 GUCs just now, when 64-bit transaction ids are far from committable shape? Or do you think we don't need int64 GUCs even if we have 64-bit transaction ids? If yes, what do you think we should use for *_age variables with 64-bit transaction ids? ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
