Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs

Hi,

> I seriously doubt that _age values exceeding INT32_MAX would be
> useful, even in the still-extremely-doubtful situation that we
> get to true 64-bit XIDs.  But if you think we must have that,
> we could still use float8 GUCs for them.  float8 is exact up
> to 2^53 (given IEEE math), and you certainly aren't going to
> convince me that anyone needs _age values exceeding that.
> For that matter, an imprecise representation of such an age
> limit would still be all right wouldn't it?

Considering the recent feedback. I'm marking the corresponding CF
entry as "Rejected".

Thanks to everyone involved!

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev