On 2022/02/09 13:04, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 09 Feb 2022 12:04:51 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
At Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:01:57 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
Agreed. So barring any objection, I will commit that patch.
Sorry for being late, but I don't like the function
At Wed, 09 Feb 2022 12:04:51 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:01:57 +0900, Fujii Masao
> wrote in
> > Agreed. So barring any objection, I will commit that patch.
>
> Sorry for being late, but I don't like the function names.
>
> +xid8_larger(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
At Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:01:57 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> Agreed. So barring any objection, I will commit that patch.
Sorry for being late, but I don't like the function names.
+xid8_larger(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+xid8_smaller(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
Aren't they named like xid8gt and xid8lt
On 2022/02/09 8:49, Ken Kato wrote:
On 2022-02-08 23:16, Fujii Masao wrote:
If you want to avoid the line longer than 80 columns, you should break
it into two or more rather than remove the test code, I think. What to
test is more important than formatting.
Also the following descriptions
On 2022-02-08 23:16, Fujii Masao wrote:
If you want to avoid the line longer than 80 columns, you should break
it into two or more rather than remove the test code, I think. What to
test is more important than formatting.
Also the following descriptions about formatting would be helpful.
On 2022/02/08 18:43, Ken Kato wrote:
On 2022-02-08 15:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch! It basically looks good to me. I
applied the following small changes to the patch. Updated version of
the patch attached. Could you review this version?
Thank you for the patch!
It
On 2022-02-08 15:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch! It basically looks good to me. I
applied the following small changes to the patch. Updated version of
the patch attached. Could you review this version?
Thank you for the patch!
It looks good to me!
I'm not sure how
On 2022/02/08 13:23, Ken Kato wrote:
Thank you for the comments!
if (FullTransactionIdFollows(fxid1, fxid2))
PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID(fxid1);
else
PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID(fxid2);
Isn't it better to use '0x'::xid8 instead of
'18446744073709551615'::xid8, to
Thank you for the comments!
if (FullTransactionIdFollows(fxid1, fxid2))
PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID(fxid1);
else
PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID(fxid2);
Isn't it better to use '0x'::xid8 instead of
'18446744073709551615'::xid8, to more easily understand that this test
On 2022/02/05 10:46, Ken Kato wrote:
Thank you for the comments.
I sent my old version of patch by mistake.
This is the updated one.
Thanks!
+ PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID((FullTransactionIdFollowsOrEquals(fxid1,
fxid2)) ? fxid1 : fxid2);
Basically it's better to use less 80 line
+ PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID((U64FromFullTransactionId(fxid1) >
U64FromFullTransactionId(fxid2)) ? fxid1 : fxid2);
Shouldn't we use FullTransactionIdFollows() to compare those two fxid
values here, instead?
+ PG_RETURN_FULLTRANSACTIONID((U64FromFullTransactionId(fxid1) <
On 2022/02/03 16:45, Ken Kato wrote:
Hi hackers,
Unlike xid, xid8 increases monotonically and cannot be reused.
This trait makes it possible to support min() and max() aggregate functions for
xid8.
I thought they would be useful for monitoring.
So I made a patch for this.
Thanks for the
Hi hackers,
Unlike xid, xid8 increases monotonically and cannot be reused.
This trait makes it possible to support min() and max() aggregate
functions for xid8.
I thought they would be useful for monitoring.
So I made a patch for this.
Best wishes,
--
Ken Kato
Advanced Computing Technology
13 matches
Mail list logo
