Re: [HACKERS] pg_lsn cast to/from int8

2016-02-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

[HACKERS] pg_lsn cast to/from int8

2016-01-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
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/

Re: [HACKERS] pg_lsn cast to/from int8

2016-01-26 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_lsn cast to/from int8

2016-01-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_lsn cast to/from int8

2016-01-26 Thread Craig Ringer
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