On 27/08/2026 20:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 1:58 AM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27/08/2026 11:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27/08/2026 10:35, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
I considered using xid8 instead but it has only comparison operators
and no arithmetic, so we couldn't compute a delta between two
checkpoints.
Hmm, that's a good point, although 'xid' didn't have those operators or
arithmetic either.
That was inaccurate: both 'xid' and 'xid8' do have comparison operators.
But they don't have a "minus" or "diff" operator, so you indeed cannot
easily do "b - a".
I don't have a strong opinion, I'm happy with either bigint or xid8
here. Bigint is probably more convenient in practice, and it's good to
not confuse mxact offsets with transaction ids by abusing the xid8 type.
Then again, it was 'xid' before, which had the same issues and we went
with 'xid' anyway. Then again, now that it doesn't wrap around anymore,
maybe 'bigint' makes more sense now.
I missed the point that we used to use 'xid' for that field. But I
agree that 'bigint' makes more sense.
Would you like to decide and commit this, or would you prefer me to do it?
I'm going to take them and go with the 'bigint' column if you're okay.
I've added the commit messages to the patches.
Ok, thank you!
- Heikki
