Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION
| От | Maxim Orlov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CACG=ezYRM-qKnQdYvt+M-AiW7ziwBF54r4MKmFQj5o0TnRtniA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
While working on a patch to implement 64-bit transaction IDs in
PostgreSQL, I ran into a small problem. The
LockApplyTransactionForSession/UnlockApplyTransactionForSession
functions utilize the SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION macro, which
assumes XIDs are 32-bits.
In my case, the transaction IDs are growing twice as large, and we don't
have enough space to store them. I could simply resize the LOCKTAG
structure, extending it by 32 bits, but this is not the best solution.
However, I noticed that the MyDatabaseId field in
SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION appears unnecessary. As far as I
understand, the suboid should already uniquely identify the
subscription. Is the MyDatabaseId field truly necessary? Will only the
suboid suffice? I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on this.
PostgreSQL, I ran into a small problem. The
LockApplyTransactionForSession/UnlockApplyTransactionForSession
functions utilize the SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION macro, which
assumes XIDs are 32-bits.
In my case, the transaction IDs are growing twice as large, and we don't
have enough space to store them. I could simply resize the LOCKTAG
structure, extending it by 32 bits, but this is not the best solution.
However, I noticed that the MyDatabaseId field in
SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION appears unnecessary. As far as I
understand, the suboid should already uniquely identify the
subscription. Is the MyDatabaseId field truly necessary? Will only the
suboid suffice? I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on this.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: