On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think it's butt-ugly, but it's only slightly uglier than
>> relfrozenxid which we're already stuck with.  The slight amount of
>> additional ugliness is that you're going to use an XID column to store
>> a uint4 that is not an XID - but I don't have a great idea how to fix
>> that.  You could mislabel it as an OID or a (signed) int4, but I'm not
>> sure that either of those is any better.  We could also create an mxid
>> data type, but that seems like it might be overkill.
> Well, we're already storing a multixact in Xmax, so it's not like we
> don't assume that we can store multis in space normally reserved for
> Xids.  What I've been wondering is not how ugly it is, but rather of the
> fact that we're bloating pg_class some more.

FWIW, users have been known to request uint datatypes; so if this really is a 
uint perhaps we should just create a uint datatype...
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to