Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format

From: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
Date: 2013-01-13 18:02:46
Message-ID: 50F2F6C6.1050502@bluegap.ch (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/13/2013 12:30 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 10:49 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Does this hint that postgreSQL also needs an sameness operator
>> ( "is" or "===" in same languages).
> 
> How do people feel about adding a real sameness operator ?

We'd need to define what "sameness" means. If this goes toward "exact
match in binary representation", this gets a thumbs-up from me.

As a first step in that direction, I'd see adjusting send() and recv()
functions to use a portable binary format. A "sameness" operator could
then be implemented by simply comparing two value's send() outputs.

Regards

Markus Wanner


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-13 18:02:47
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-13 18:01:07
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] unified frontend support for pg_malloc et al and palloc/pfree mulation (was xlogreader-v4)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group