On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 26 January 2016 at 22:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>> In this case, mostly legacy compatibility. Making an app that works with
>> versions that don't have pg_lsn have a nice path forward to the modern
>> world. Being able to cast from p
On 26 January 2016 at 22:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In this case, mostly legacy compatibility. Making an app that works with
> versions that don't have pg_lsn have a nice path forward to the modern
> world. Being able to cast from pg_lsn to int8 can also make it easier to
> work with the value
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-01-26 14:56:21 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Is there a reason we don't have casts between int8 and pg_lsn? AFAICT it
> > works fine if I create the cast manually... Is it because of
> > signed/unsigned if people have really real
On 2016-01-26 14:56:21 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there a reason we don't have casts between int8 and pg_lsn? AFAICT it
> works fine if I create the cast manually... Is it because of
> signed/unsigned if people have really really many transactions?
What for do you want that cast? Yes, the
Is there a reason we don't have casts between int8 and pg_lsn? AFAICT it
works fine if I create the cast manually... Is it because of
signed/unsigned if people have really really many transactions?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
