On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms > > >> right now. We have looked at adding unsigned integer types in the past > > >> and it looked like a mess. > > > > > I assume Thomas was thinking more of another bespoke type like xid, just > > > wider. There's some notational advantage in not being able to > > > immediately do math etc on xids. > > > > Well, we could invent an xid8 type if we want, just don't try to make > > it part of the numeric hierarchy (as indeed xid isn't). > > Yeah, I meant an xid64/xid8/fxid/pg_something/... type that isn't a > kind of number.
I played around with an xid8 type over here (not tested much yet, in particular not tested on 32 bit box): https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGKbQtX8E5TEdcZaYhTxqLqrvcpN1Vjb7eCu2bz5EACZbw%40mail.gmail.com -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
