On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:27, Darcy Buskermolen wrote: > On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote: > > Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it? > > > > > > If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up > > > being Slony is designed to work across a multitude of versions of PG, > > > and unless this was backported to at least 7.4, it would take a while > > > (ie when we stopped supporting versions older than it was ported into) > > > before we would make use of it. > > > > [ shrug... ] That's not happening; for one thing the change requires a > > layout change in pg_control and we have no mechanism to do that without > > initdb. > > I'll take a bit more of a look through the patch and see if it is a real > boot to use it on those platforms that support it, and that we have a > suitable way around it on those that don't. But at this point I wouldn't > hold my breath on that
In one of those 3am lightbulbs I belive I have a way to make use of the 64-bit XID counter and still maintain the ability to have backwards compatibility. Is there any chance you could break this patch up into the 2 separate componenets that Hannu mentions, and rework the XID stuff into TransactionIdAdvance as per tom's recommendation. And in the meantime I'll pencil out the slony stuff to utilize this. > > > regards, tom lane -- Darcy Buskermolen CommandPrompt, Inc. Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 http://www.commandprompt.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
