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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2014-02-19 14:30:04
Message-ID: 20140219143004.GL28858@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-02-19 09:24:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn...
> > Should I register this patch somewhere to avoid having it lost in the void?
> > Regards,
>
> Well, I committed this, but the buildfarm's deeply unhappy with it.
> Apparently the use of GET_8_BYTES() and SET_8_BYTES() is no good on
> some platforms... and I'm not sure what to do about that, right
> off-hand.

The relevant bit probably is:

pg_lsn.c: In function 'pg_lsn_out':
pg_lsn.c:59:2: warning: implicit declaration of function 'GET_8_BYTES' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

GET_8_BYTES only exists for 64bit systems.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-02-19 14:33:53 Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-02-19 14:24:03 Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?