Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mié feb 01 21:33:47 -0300 2012: > > 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...
Yeah. This is just for internal consumption, though, not a full-blown datatype. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers