Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-21 Thread Marko Kreen
On 8/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 8/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not following the point here. Dump and restore has never intended >> to preserve the transaction counter, so why should it preserve >> high-order bit

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 8/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not following the point here. Dump and restore has never intended >> to preserve the transaction counter, so why should it preserve >> high-order bits of the transaction counter? > Thus it guarantee

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-21 Thread Marko Kreen
On 8/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dropping the pg_sync_txid() would be loss, because that means that > user cannot just dump and restore the data and just continue where > it left off. Maybe its not a problem for replication but for gener

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dropping the pg_sync_txid() would be loss, because that means that > user cannot just dump and restore the data and just continue where > it left off. Maybe its not a problem for replication but for generic > queueing it would need delicate juggling when

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-21 Thread Marko Kreen
On 8/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (I wouldn't do it like this though --- TransactionIdAdvance itself is >> the place to bump the secondary counter.) > Agreed. I reconsidered after trying to do it that way --- although

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Following patch exports 8 byte txid and snapshot to user level > allowing its use in regular SQL. It is based on Slony-I xxid > module. It provides special 'snapshot' type for snapshot but > uses regular int8 for transaction ID's. Per discussion, I've ap

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The part of this that would actually be useful to put in core is >> maintaining a 64-bit XID counter, ie, keep an additional counter that >> bumps every time XID wraps around. This cannot be done very well from >> outside core but it w

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-28 Thread Marko Kreen
On 7/27/06, Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 tha

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-27 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
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. T

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-07-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Darcy Buskermolen wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-07-26 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 14:27, kirjutas Darcy Buskermolen: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 Sl

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
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 mult

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-07-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor > > have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality. > > Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this. > > The part of this that would actu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-07-26 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 13:35, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: > I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, The use case is any slony-like replication system or queueing system which needs consistent means of knowing batches of transactions which have finished during s

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to

2006-07-26 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 13:41, kirjutas Darcy Buskermolen: > On Wednesday 26 July 2006 13:04, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor > > > have I heard people in the community requesting

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Tom Lane
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 t

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 13:04, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor > > have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality. > > Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this. > > T

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor > have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality. > Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this. The part of this that would actually be useful to put in cor

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

2006-07-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality. Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this. --- Marko Kreen wrote: > > Intro