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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
