On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> 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.
Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn...
--
Michael
