On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:56 AM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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!
Pushed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
