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

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12 December 2013 12:27, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-11 08:13:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> > There's already a couple of SQL function dealing with XLogRecPtrs and
>>> > the logical replication work will add a couple of more. Currently each
>>> > of those funtions taking/returning an LSN does sprintf/scanf to
>>> > print/parse the strings. Which both is awkward and potentially
>>> > noticeable performancewise.
>>> >
>>> > It seems relatively simple to add a proper type, with implicit casts
>>> > from text, instead?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that this was discussed last year, and I voted for it
>>> but more people
>>> voted against it, so it died.  I still think that was a mistake, but I
>>> just work here.
>>
>> Ah. I missed or forgot that discussion.
>
> Hmm, don't recall that. Just in case I opposed it, its a good idea now.

I am happy to have my old patch resurrected - could become a trend.
But someone should probably go back and check who objected and for
what reasons.

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