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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers