On 2014-02-04 19:17:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > >> + /*---------------------------------------------------------- > >> + * Relational operators for LSNs > >> + *---------------------------------------------------------*/ > > > > Isn't it just operators? They aren't really relational... > Operators for LSNs?
Fine with me. > >> + #define DatumGetLogSeqNum(X) ((XLogRecPtr) GET_8_BYTES(X)) > > > > I am not a fan of LogSegNum. I think at this point fewer people > > understand that than LSN. There's also no reason to invent a third term > > for LSNs. We'd have LSN, XLogRecPtr, and LogSeqNum. > So let's go with DatumGetLSN and LSNGetDatum instead... Sup. > >> *** a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > >> --- b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > >> *************** > >> *** 141,148 **** pg_get_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > >> bool active; > >> Oid database; > >> const char *slot_name; > >> - > >> - char restart_lsn_s[MAXFNAMELEN]; > >> int i; > >> > >> SpinLockAcquire(&slot->mutex); > >> --- 141,146 ---- > > > > Unrelated change. > Funnily, the patch attached in my previous mail did not include all > the diffs, it is an error with filterdiff that I use to generate > context diff patches... My original branch includes the following Ah, then it makes more sense. > diffs as well in slotfuncs.c for the second patch: > diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > index 98a860e..68ecdcd 100644 > --- a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > +++ b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c > @@ -141,8 +141,6 @@ pg_get_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > bool active; > Oid database; > const char *slot_name; > - > - char restart_lsn_s[MAXFNAMELEN]; > int i; > > SpinLockAcquire(&slot->mutex); > @@ -164,9 +162,6 @@ pg_get_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > memset(nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls)); > > - snprintf(restart_lsn_s, sizeof(restart_lsn_s), "%X/%X", > - (uint32) (restart_lsn >> 32), > (uint32) restart_lsn); > - > i = 0; > values[i++] = CStringGetTextDatum(slot_name); > if (database == InvalidOid) > @@ -180,7 +175,7 @@ pg_get_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > else > nulls[i++] = true; > if (restart_lsn != InvalidTransactionId) > - values[i++] = CStringGetTextDatum(restart_lsn_s); > + values[i++] = restart_lsn; > else > nulls[i++] = true; Isn't that missing a LSNGetDatum()? Also, isn't it lacking the corresponding pg_proc change? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
