On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> On 2/5/14, 1:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>> Perhaps this type should be called pglsn, since it's an >>>>> implementation-specific detail and not a universal concept like int, >>>>> point, or uuid. >>>> >>>> If we're going to do that, I suggest pg_lsn rather than pglsn. We >>>> already have pg_node_tree, so using underscores for separation would >>>> be more consistent. >>> >>> Yes, that's a good precedent in multiple ways. >> Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn... > > OK, so I think this stuff is all committed now, with assorted changes. > Thanks for your work on this. Thanks! Oops, it looks like I am coming after the battle (time difference does not help). I'll be more careful to test such patches on 32b platforms as well in the future. Regards, -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
