| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? |
| Date: | 2013-12-11 13:13:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaWQ2LfbjuXo4EXY_o-A_VvjVCZk-LtYjQuBPnjxaFPUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
I'm pretty sure that this was discussed last year, and I voted for it
-- except for the implicit casts part, perhaps -- but more people
voted against it, so it died. I still think that was a mistake, but I
just work here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2013-12-11 13:13:51 | Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-11 13:02:30 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |