Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131212172000.GB25303@alap2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2013-12-12 11:55:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not, however, terribly thrilled with the suggestions to add implicit > casts associated with this type. Implicit casts are generally dangerous. It's a tradeof. Currently we have the following functions returning LSNs as text: * pg_current_xlog_location * pg_current_xlog_insert_location * pg_last_xlog_receive_location * pg_last_xlog_replay_location one view containing LSNs * pg_stat_replication and the following functions accepting LSNs as textual paramters: * pg_xlog_location_diff * pg_xlogfile_name The question is how do we deal with backward compatibility when introducing a LSN type? There might be some broken code around monitoring if we simply replace the type without implicit casts. But just leaving all those as-is seems quite unattractive. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: