Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Date: 2014-02-05 18:48:40
Message-ID: 52F28788.5030405@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/5/14, 1:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Perhaps this type should be called pglsn, since it's an
>> implementation-specific detail and not a universal concept like int,
>> point, or uuid.
>
> If we're going to do that, I suggest pg_lsn rather than pglsn. We
> already have pg_node_tree, so using underscores for separation would
> be more consistent.

Yes, that's a good precedent in multiple ways.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-02-05 18:49:00 Re: [doc patch] extra_float_digits and casting from real to numeric
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-02-05 18:47:55 Re: Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD