Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Hans-Juergen Schoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Doing this for XIDs is pretty useless this days. > It is only targeted for command ids which are consumed heavily by > stored procedure languages. > It happens once on a while that a complex business logic procedure > runs out of command ids i

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-20 Thread Hans-Juergen Schoenig
"Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If we're going to make this a ./configure option, ISTM we should do the same with XID size as well. I know there are high-velocity databases that could use that. Keep in mind we just changed things so that read-only transactions don't consume xid

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-20 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > All that said I don't really see much reason not to make it an option. I just > don't think anyone really needs it. In 5-10 years though... The manpower we'd have to invest in making it work and keeping it working would be enough reason ...

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-20 Thread Gregory Stark
"Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we're going to make this a ./configure option, ISTM we should do the same > with XID size as well. I know there are high-velocity databases that could > use > that. Keep in mind we just changed things so that read-only transactions don't consume xid

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-20 Thread Decibel!
On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Gregory Stark wrote: I don't understand. The patch only affects configuration and SQL data type code. It doesn't actually store the 64-bit commandid anywhere which would be the actual hard part. Sure it does, this is the significant p

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gregory Stark wrote: I don't understand. The patch only affects configuration and SQL data type code. It doesn't actually store the 64-bit commandid anywhere which would be the actual hard part. Sure it does, this is the significant part of the patch: *** pgsql.orig/src/include/c.h 2008-03-02

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-10 Thread Gregory Stark
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > what's your opinion on this? > I saw response only from Alvaro on the -patches list. I don't understand. The patch only affects configuration and SQL data type code. It doesn't actually store the 64-bit commandid anywhere which would be

[HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds]

2008-03-10 Thread Zoltan Boszormenyi
Hi, what's your opinion on this? I saw response only from Alvaro on the -patches list. Thanks in advance, Zoltán Böszörményi Eredeti üzenet Tárgy: Re: [PATCHES] 64-bit CommandIds Dátum: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:52:25 +0100 Feladó: Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cí