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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Thanks!
>> Oops, it looks like I am coming after the battle (time difference does
>> not help). I'll be more careful to test such patches on 32b platforms
>> as well in the future.
> After re-reading the code, I found two incorrect comments in the new
> regression tests. Patch fixing them is attached.

Thanks, committed.  But I left out the whitespace change you included.

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