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: | AANLkTi=V641Vd2bpi8YhqkFuApHb0dZ1T=N8fQ-HRTsR@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-30 14:28:09 | Re: Old git repo |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-30 13:59:41 | Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions |