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

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Date: 2013-12-12 10:36:02
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPvZFcj5P70AHTxaYgx_oxTz2LTGVw8c4GirS41szfFsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bonus points if you implement a (explicit) cast to and from timestamptz :)

--
greg
On 11 Dec 2013 12:41, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There's already a couple of SQL function dealing with XLogRecPtrs and
> the logical replication work will add a couple of more. Currently each
> of those funtions taking/returning an LSN does sprintf/scanf to
> print/parse the strings. Which both is awkward and potentially
> noticeable performancewise.
>
> It seems relatively simple to add a proper type, with implicit casts
> from text, instead?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KONDO Mitsumasa 2013-12-12 10:42:24 Re: Time-Delayed Standbys
Previous Message Rajeev rastogi 2013-12-12 10:34:35 Re: TODO: Split out pg_resetxlog output into pre- and post-sections