From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_lsn cast to/from int8 |
Date: | 2016-01-26 14:07:34 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEw6b7z+CHrywOF_3gXJU7kAYxCqZNbqETZnSJQFATVi_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-01-26 14:56:21 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Is there a reason we don't have casts between int8 and pg_lsn? AFAICT it
> > works fine if I create the cast manually... Is it because of
> > signed/unsigned if people have really really many transactions?
>
> What for do you want that cast? Yes, the internally mostly share the
> representation, but other than that, I don't really see why it's
> interesting?
>
In this case, mostly legacy compatibility. Making an app that works with
versions that don't have pg_lsn have a nice path forward to the modern
world. Being able to cast from pg_lsn to int8 can also make it easier to
work with the values in the client application, though I don't need that
for this particular one.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-01-26 14:08:01 | Re: Improve tab completion for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-01-26 14:00:43 | Re: pg_lsn cast to/from int8 |