On 2/5/14, 1:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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.
>
> If we're going to do that, I suggest pg_lsn rather than pglsn. We
> already have pg_node_tree, so using underscores for separation would
> be more consistent.
Yes, that's a good precedent in multiple ways.
