Re: +(pg_lsn, int8) and -(pg_lsn, int8) operators

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: +(pg_lsn, int8) and -(pg_lsn, int8) operators
Date: 2020-04-27 16:24:06
Message-ID: CA+TgmobHuvqBd1SVFNQNcA=KJMKx_5wNsKTa3yqHwwqqx+wNWA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 9:41 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +1. I actually sometimes need it.
>
> y the way, -(pg_lsn, pg_lsn) yields a numeric.

It might be a good idea to use numeric here, too. Because int8 is
signed, it's not big enough to cover the whole range of LSNs.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-04-27 16:26:03 Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-27 16:18:23 Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10