On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Sameer Thakur <samthaku...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please find v10 of patch attached. This patch addresses following >> review comments > > I've cleaned this up - revision attached - and marked it "ready for > committer". > > I decided that queryid should be of type oid, not bigint. This is > arguably a slight abuse of notation, but since ultimately Oids are > just abstract object identifiers (so say the docs), but also because > there is no other convenient, minimal way of representing unsigned > 32-bit integers in the view that I'm aware of, I'm inclined to think > that it's appropriate.
There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current() returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint. Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
