Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...

OK, so I think this stuff is all committed now, with assorted changes.Thanks for your work on this.

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