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

Re: Function for dealing with xlog data

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Function for dealing with xlog data
Date: 2010-12-30 14:05:19
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar dic 28 10:46:31 -0300 2010:
>>> Well, yeah, that was obvious ;) The question is, how much do we prefer
>>> the more elegant method? ;)
>> If we go the new type route, do we need it to have an implicit cast to
>> text, for backwards compatibility?
> I'd argue not.  Probably all existing uses are just selecting the
> function value.  What comes back to the client will just be the text
> form anyway.

That's certainly the only thing I've seen.

> I'm of the opinion that a new type isn't worth the work, myself,
> but it would mostly be up to whoever was doing the work.

Fair enough - at least enough people have said it won't be rejected
because it's done as a function rather than a datatype - so that seems
like the easiest way to proceed.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-12-30 14:28:09
Subject: Re: Old git repo
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-12-30 13:59:41
Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group