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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQw0P+TXrSyQKS_7B8sFNOTi4DdAstYcZJcZvYpFJvJ0g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-19 12:47:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Yes, that's a good precedent in multiple ways.
>> > Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn...
>>
>> OK, so I think this stuff is all committed now, with assorted changes.
>>  Thanks for your work on this.
>
> cool, thanks you two.
>
> I wonder if pg_stat_replication shouldn't be updated to use it as well?
> SELECT * FROM pg_attribute WHERE attname ~ '(location|lsn)'; only shows
> that as names that are possible candidates for conversion.
I was sure to have forgotten some views or functions in the previous
patch... Please find attached a patch making pg_stat_replication use
pg_lsn instead of the existing text fields.
Regards,
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #9210: PostgreSQL string store bug? not enforce check with correct characterSET/encoding
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT