| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: +(pg_lsn, int8) and -(pg_lsn, int8) operators |
| Date: | 2020-04-23 19:21:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ8NTkJP2k4bfVVopvyrRffz43tO7vkpQ9Fhxj9oFDS+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As it's presented in the patch I don't see much value in calling it as
> LSN arithmetic. If we could do something like LSN of Nth WAL record
> +/- <number of WAL records, n> = LSN of N+/- n th log record that
> would be interesting. :)
Well, that would mean that the value of x + 1 would depend not only on
x but on the contents of WAL, and that it would be uncomputable
without having the WAL available, and that adding large values would
be quite expensive.
I much prefer Fujii Masao's proposal.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-04-23 19:27:29 | Re: [PATCH] FIx resource leaks (pg_resetwal.c) |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2020-04-23 18:40:21 | Re: [PATCH] FIx resource leaks (pg_resetwal.c) |