On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:07 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2018-03-02 01:56:00 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > wrote: > > > > > On 2018-03-02 01:48:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > Also, the last commitfest is already too late for such big changes. > > > > So, I'm marking this RWF. > > > > > > Agreed. Perhaps extract the 64bit GUC patch and track that separately? > > > Seems like something we should just do... > > > > > > > Sounds reasonable. But I didn't notice if there are other users for > 64bit > > GUCs besides 64bit xids? > > I think there were a couple past occasions where we could've used that, > don't quite recall the details. We're at least not that far away from > the point where various size limits are actually limited by int32 > range. And timeouts of ~25 days are long but not entirely unreasonable. > As a note here, I have worked on projects where there could be 2-week-long idle-in-transaction states (no joke, we tuned things to only use virtual xids for most of that time), and having an ability to set idle-in-transaction timeouts to figures of greater than a month are things I could imagine doing. I would certainly favor the idea of 64-big GUC variables as a general rule. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
