Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Wanner
Subject Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
Date
Msg-id 50F2F6C6.1050502@bluegap.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
List pgsql-hackers
On 01/13/2013 12:30 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 10:49 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Does this hint that postgreSQL also needs an sameness operator
>> ( "is" or "===" in same languages).
> 
> How do people feel about adding a real sameness operator ?

We'd need to define what "sameness" means. If this goes toward "exact
match in binary representation", this gets a thumbs-up from me.

As a first step in that direction, I'd see adjusting send() and recv()
functions to use a portable binary format. A "sameness" operator could
then be implemented by simply comparing two value's send() outputs.

Regards

Markus Wanner



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] unified frontend support for pg_malloc et al and palloc/pfree mulation (was xlogreader-v4)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format