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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: 2014-02-04 23:59:30
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRbiw7-_dWZn_BEhkCyF5g2xECd64vRtLTz+50JPvcMog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Perhaps this type should be called pglsn, since it's an
> implementation-specific detail and not a universal concept like int,
> point, or uuid.
It makes sense. I'll update the patches according to that.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2014-02-05 00:14:51 Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-02-04 23:02:46 Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT