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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
