On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 14:08, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > On 20-12-2011 07:27, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 19:06, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira >>> <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: >>>> On 06-12-2011 13:11, Robert Haas wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I've been considering similar things, as you can find in the archives, >>>>>> but what I was thinking of was converting the number to just a plain >>>>>> bigint, then letting the user apply whatever arithmetic wanted at the >>>>>> SQL level. I never got around to acutally coding it, though. It could >>>>>> easily be extracted from your patch of course - and I think that's a >>>>>> more flexible approach. Is there some advantage to your method that >>>>>> I'm missing? >>>>> >>>>> I went so far as to put together an lsn data type. I didn't actually >>>>> get all that far with it, which is why I haven't posted it sooner, but >>>>> here's what I came up with. It's missing indexing support and stuff, >>>>> but that could be added if people like the approach. It solves this >>>>> problem by implementing -(lsn,lsn) => numeric (not int8, that can >>>>> overflow since it is not unsigned), which allows an lsn => numeric >>>>> conversion by just subtracting '0/0'::lsn. >>>>> >>>> Interesting approach. I don't want to go that far. If so, you want to >>>> change >>>> all of those functions that deal with LSNs and add some implicit conversion >>>> between text and lsn data types (for backward compatibility). As of int8, >>>> I'm >> >> As long as you have the conversion, you don't really need to change >> them, do you? It might be nice in some ways, but this is still a >> pretty internal operation, so I don't see it as critical. >> > For correctness, yes. > > At this point, my question is: do we want to support the lsn data type idea or > a basic function that implements the difference between LSNs?
Personally I think a function is enough - it solves the only case that I've actually seen. But a datatype would be a more complete solution, of course - but it seems a bit of an overkill to me. Not really sure which way we should go - I was hoping somebody else would comment as well.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
