Re: Function for dealing with xlog data

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Function for dealing with xlog data
Date: 2010-12-28 15:30:42
Message-ID: 19566.1293550242@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joachim Wieland 2010-12-28 15:33:07 Re: page compression
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-28 15:15:55 Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility