Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa-TuWPwZ+3bpYPeqEQrNxzx7BRbuqaGuo1etnDrRQobg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: show xid and xmin in pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT