From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce MIN/MAX aggregate functions to pg_lsn |
Date: | 2019-07-02 14:31:49 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+qC_Up88uvA9sS2F+KEjvMk0+oWoLRSP4gphhHwJk58zA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:22 AM Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Here are same review comment
Thanks for your review.
> - <entry>any numeric, string, date/time, network, or enum type,
> + <entry>any numeric, string, date/time, network, lsn, or enum type,
> or arrays of these types</entry>
> <entry>same as argument type</entry>
> In the documentation it refereed as pg_lsn type rather than lsn alone
Fixed.
> +Datum
> +pg_lsn_larger(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> +{
> + XLogRecPtr lsn1 = PG_GETARG_LSN(0);
> + XLogRecPtr lsn2 = PG_GETARG_LSN(1);
> + XLogRecPtr result;
> +
> + result = ((lsn1 > lsn2) ? lsn1 : lsn2);
> +
> + PG_RETURN_LSN(result);
> +}
>
> rather than using additional variable its more readable and effective to
return the argument
> itself like we do in date data type and other place
>
Fixed.
New version attached.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
add_min_max_aggregates_for_pg_lsn_type_v2.patch | text/x-patch | 5.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anthony Nowocien | 2019-07-02 14:43:20 | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Adam Berlin | 2019-07-02 14:10:51 | Re: C testing for Postgres |