On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of >>> unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current() >>> returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint. >>> Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid? >> >> We're talking about the output of some view, right, not internal storage? >> +1 for using bigint for that. Using OID is definitely an abuse, because >> the value *isn't* an OID. And besides, what if we someday decide we need >> 64-bit keys not 32-bit? > > Fair enough. I was concerned about the cost of external storage of > 64-bit integers (unlike query text, they might have to be stored many > times for many distinct intervals or something like that), but in > hindsight that was fairly miserly of me. > > Attached revision displays signed 64-bit integers instead.
Thanks! Looks good to me. Committed! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
