> On Jun 17, 2024, at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alexander Lipatov <lipatov@mindbox.cloud> writes: >> **Question**: Is it safe to create custom ordering operators for the `xid` type and a default operator class with these operators? > > I wouldn't do it, mainly because the semantics of what you've written > have nothing to do with the actual behavior of xids. (The real > comparison behavior is "circular", which can't be modeled as a total > order, which is why there's not a built-in opclass already.) > > What is that ORM doing with XIDs anyway, and is there a good reason > not to run away screaming from such an ill-thought-out product? > I don't believe for a minute that this is going to be the only > semantic issue you'll run into with an ORM that thinks it knows > how XIDs behave despite a clear lack of even the most minimal > investigation into the question. > > regards, tom lane > > Assuming they are using it for opportunist locking. I have use this method before but not with a system column. i.e. 1. Application fetches the record with an xmin of 55, no need to maintain an open transaction: select xmin, * from table where id = 8; 2. Application edits record 3. Application saves record: update table set col1 = ‘x’ where id = 8 and xmin = 55; 4. If the record was updated by another session then xmin would be different, the save would fail by updating zero records, and user would have to reedit the record. Not a fan of ORMs myself but I think opportunist locking has its place.
