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

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> On 2014-02-19 12:47:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Michael Paquier
> >>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> >> Yes, that's a good precedent in multiple ways.
> >>> > Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn...
> >>>
> >>> OK, so I think this stuff is all committed now, with assorted changes.
> >>> Thanks for your work on this.
> >>
> >> cool, thanks you two.
> >>
> >> I wonder if pg_stat_replication shouldn't be updated to use it as well?
> >> SELECT * FROM pg_attribute WHERE attname ~ '(location|lsn)'; only shows
> >> that as names that are possible candidates for conversion.
> > I was sure to have forgotten some views or functions in the previous
> > patch... Please find attached a patch making pg_stat_replication use
> > pg_lsn instead of the existing text fields.
> > Regards,
>
> Committed. Do we want to do anything about pageinspect?
>
Thanks. We're dealing with that on another thread, I'll send an updated
patch there.
--
Michael